Δευτέρα 30 Δεκεμβρίου 2019

Efficacy of Bimin decoction for patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: an open-label non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

Efficacy of Bimin decoction for patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: an open-label non-inferiority randomized controlled trial: ConclusionsThese findings indicate that BMD helps relieve the symptoms of perennial AR and improves rhinitis-related quality of life. Our study indicates that BMD is non-inferior to loratadine tablets and fluticasone nasal spray for AR patients with LQDCS.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry,ChiCTR-INR-16010063. Registered on 2 December 2016. (Source: Trials)

MedWorm Message: Have you tried our new medical search engine? More powerful than before. Log on with your social media account. 100% free.





. 2018 Oct; 46(10): 4006–4018.
Published online 2018 Aug 7. doi: 10.1177/0300060518786905
PMCID: PMC6166336
PMID: 30084286

Efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine in treatment of allergic rhinitis in children: a meta-analysis of 19 randomized controlled trials

Zhongying Zhou, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, No. 138 Xianlin Avenue, Qixia District, 210023, Nangjing City, Jangsu Province, China. Email: moc.621@963gniyzz
Received 2018 Feb 15; Accepted 2018 May 28.

Introduction

Allergic rhinitis (AR), which is characterized by symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and nasal itching, is a type of disease of the upper respiratory tract. Studies have shown that the prevalence of AR symptoms varies from 1.5% to 24.5%. In China, the mean prevalence of childhood AR ranges from 3.9% to 16.8%. A higher prevalence of AR exists as a single entity in boys than in girls during childhood., Most patients complain of symptoms of AR before 20 years old, with 40% being symptomatic before 6 years old. Evidence has shown an association between AR and asthma in children., Although AR is not a life-threatening disease, AR imposes a heavy financial burden on patients and society because of treatment and social costs., Furthermore, AR can have a substantial negative effect on concentration and even academic performance in children.
Effective treatment is helpful in preventing children with rhinoconjunctivitis from asthma onset later in life., Treatment for AR includes effective symptomatic control, allergen avoidance, standardized immunotherapy, and health education of patients. Although medications can be effective at controlling the symptoms of nasal allergies, they are associated with adverse effects, such as local epistaxis, nasal dryness, irritation from intranasal medications, and drowsiness from antihistamines., However, growth may be hindered by use of corticosteroids. AR is a manifestation of a single inflammatory process. Immunoglobulin E (IgE) as identified by Immunological methods is considered as a diagnostic marker and therapeutic target on AR.
There is a high prevalence of Chinese traditional medicine (TCM) use in the pediatric population in China. In Taiwan, parents of children with AR tend to ask for TCM treatment and Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as the most common therapeutic approach., Studies have shown that CHM is effective in adults. Some clinical trials on AR in children treated with CHM have been reported. However, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no meta-analyses for evaluating the efficacy of CHM. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to collect evidence to evaluate the effect of CHM treatment of AR in children.

Methods

Database and search strategies

The literature search was conducted by two authors (Zhipan Zheng and Zhenshuang Sun) independently. Any disagreement on the relevance of inclusion was resolved by discussion until a general consensus was reached. This study did not require ethical approval because it contained data from previously published studies.
The preliminary electronic databases that we searched were MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Cqvip Database (VIP), and the Wanfang Database up to December 2017. Key words or free-text terms that we used were as follows: “allergic rhinitis”, “children”, “pediatrics”, “randomized, clinical trials”, “traditional Chinese medicine”, and “Chinese herbal medicine”.

Inclusion criteria

A study was eligible for inclusion if it met the following criteria: (1) a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) was designed by the study; (2) patients were diagnosed with AR as defined by the Chinese Medical Association or other well-recognized AR diagnostic criteria were included, were of either sex, and their age not older than 18 years; and (3) patients in the treatment group were treated with CHM. All RCTs were selected with no restrictions on language, population characteristics, blinding, and publication type.

Exclusion criteria

Studies were excluded if they met any one of the following criteria: (1) duplicated publications; (2) reviews, meeting abstracts, case reports, and comments; (3) patients whose age was older than 18 years; and (4) patients in the CHM group were treated with acupuncture, external application, or massage.

Outcomes

The outcome measures were as follows: (1) total effective rate (clinical cure rate + showing effectiveness rate); (2) recurrence rate; (3) scores of the symptoms, including sneezing, running nose, nasal congestion, and nasal itching; (4) IgE levels; and (5) adverse reactions.
According to the Guiding Principle of Clinical Research on New Drugs of TCM, the clinical efficacy of TCM was classified as a clinical cure, showing an effect, and no effect. A clinical cure was defined as disappearance of symptoms and signs, and no abnormal condition as checked by rhinoscopy. An effect was defined as relief of symptoms and signs, with turbinate swelling as checked by rhinoscopy. No effect was defined as no relief of symptoms and signs. Symptoms and signs included sneezing, running nose, nasal congestion, and nasal itching. Rhinoscopy was used to detect nasal mucosa with a pale color, hyperemia, turbinate swelling, and catarrh.

Study selection and data extraction

Two reviewers independently examined abstracts in the search results to identify potential relevance, and then screened full texts for final identification. The following information was extracted: authors, date of publication, sample size, sex and age of the participants, details of the interventions, outcomes measures, and adverse reactions. All included articles were judged by a third reviewer.

Quality assessment

The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated by two coauthors independently. The Jadad score criteria were used50. The following three domains were assessed: method of randomization, blinding, dropouts, and withdrawals. Two points were allocated if the method of randomization was described in the study and it was appropriately conducted. One point was allocated if the method of randomization was not appropriate. Two points were allocated if the method of blinding was double-blind and the blinding method was described. One point was allocated if the method of blinding was not appropriate. One point was allocated if the study stated withdrawal or dropout. Otherwise, 0 points were allocated if the study did not describe withdrawal and dropout. Three points or more than 3 points were considered to indicate a high-quality study. The maximum number of points was 5. Fewer than 3 points was considered to indicate a low-quality study.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed by using Review Manager 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Heterogeneity between similar studies was evaluated by the chi-square test and I2 statistic. If I2 was ≤50%, then the possibility of heterogeneity between the studies was low, and a fixed-effects model was used. If I2 was >50%, there was heterogeneity between the studies, and a random-effects model was used. Enumeration data are expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Measurement data are expressed as the mean difference (MD) with the 95% CI. Statistical significant difference was set as P < 0.05. Publication bias was examined using a funnel plot by using Review Manager 5.3 software.

Description of included studies

An initial search identified 1149 potentially relevant citations, including 351 studies from CNKI, 372 from the Wanfang Database, 373 from VIP, 27 from PubMed, 19 from Embase, and 7 from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A total of 555 duplicated articles were excluded using EndNote X7 software (Clarivate Analytics, Boston, MA, USA). After reading the titles and abstracts, 594 articles regarding animal experiments, experience reports, and other treatments and trials carried out on adults were eliminated. Two reviewers then carefully read the full text of the remaining 40 articles; 21 studies that did not meet all of the inclusion criteria were excluded. Therefore, 19 eligible trials were chosen for the meta-analysis. A total of 1623 participants, of which there were 832 patients in the CHM group and 791 patients in control group, were involved (Figure 1).
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10.1177_0300060518786905-fig1.jpg
Flowchart of the study selection process

Methodological quality of included RCTs

Baseline information, such as interventions and outcome measurement, for the treatment and control groups is shown in Table 1. On the basis of the inclusion criteria, 19 relevant citations were included in this study. However, only six studies used the stochastic indicator method. The rest of the studies applied a randomized method, but none of them had a specific description. None of the studies had a precalculated sample size or used a double-blind method (Table 2).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the eligible studies
StudyTreatment interventionn (M/F), age (mean ± SD and range, years)Control interventionn (M/F), age (mean ± SD and range, years)Course (days)Outcome measure
Luo et al., 201732Suhuang Zhike capsules30, NALoratadine tablets30, NA14Efficacy, scores of the symptoms, adverse reaction
Hong et al., 201733Decoction of CHM60 (32/28),5.17 ± 2.50 (2–11)Loratadine tablets60 (29/31), 5.28 ± 2.64 (2–12)28Efficacy
Zhao et al., 201634Decoction of CHM50, NA (3–12)Montelukast sodium chewable tablets50, NA (3–12)28Efficacy
Wang et al., 201635Decoction of CHM47 (25/22), 5.28 ± 1.46 (2–13)Loratadine syrup47 (26/21), 5.34 ± 1.29 (2–12)56Efficacy, recurrence rate
Liang, 201636Bimin San32 (28/4), 9.2 ± 1.0 (5–14)Cetirizine dihydrochloride tablets28 (21/7), 8.8 ± 1.2 (6–13)56Efficacy, adverse reaction
Hu et al., 201637Wenfei Zhiliu Dan66 (35/31), 6.21 ± 1.44 (2–14)Inhalebudesonideaerosol, Dermatophagoides farinae drops66 (32/34), 6.67 ± 1.26 (3–13)42Efficacy, recurrence rate, adverse reaction
Liu, 201438Decoction of CHM55 (31/24), 5.17 ± 2.50 (2–11)Loratadine syrup55 (34/21), 5.28 ± 2.64 (2–12)28Efficacy, scores of the symptoms,
Yu, 201539Decoction of CHM48 (28/20), 6.58 ± 1.34 (4–13)Budesonide aerosol, loratadine tablets48 (30/18), 6.87 ± 1.35 (3–14)56Efficacy, recurrence rate
Zhou, 201440Decoction of CHM60 (35/25), NA (2–15)Biyuang Tongqiao granules60 (31/29), NA (3–14)14Efficacy
Zhang, 201441Decoction of CHM40 (23/17), NA (5–14)Prednisone acetate tablets, ketotifen fumarate tablets, ephedrine hydrochloride andnitrofurazone nasal drops40 (24/16), NA (6–13)14Efficacy
Guo et al., 201442Decoction of CHM28 (15/13), NA (3.5–14)Loratadine tablets28 (14/14), NA (3.5–14)14Efficacy, recurrence rate
Chen, 201443Decoction of CHM30 (16/14), 6.60 ± 2.12Loratadine tablets30 (17/13), 7.20 ± 1.2928Efficacy
Wang, 201344Decoction of CHM50 (22/28), NA (4–14)Loratadine tablets50 (24/26), NA (4–12)14Efficacy, Scores of the symptoms
Luo, 201345Decoction of CHM70 (42/28), NA (2–11)Loratadine tablets70 (41/29), NA (2–11)21Efficacy, adverse reaction
Wang, 201246Decoction of CHM40 (23/17), NA (5–14)Terfenadine tablets, prednisone acetate tablets, ephedrine hydrochloride nasal drops20 (12/8), NA (6–14)14Efficacy
Yang, 201047Yupingfeng granules25 (14/11), NA (3–14)Loratadine tablets21 (12/9), NA (3–14)56Efficacy, recurrence rate
Chen, 201048Decoction of CHM35 (20/15), 4.86 ± 0.43 (1.5–10)Loratadine tablets35 (21/14), 4.76 ± 0.42 (1.8–11)28Efficacy
Yuan et al., 200949Bimin oral liquid30 (16/14), 10.0 ± 3.5 (6–17)Loratadine tablets30 (17/13), 11.0 ± 2.9 (5–16)20Efficacy, IgE
Zhao et al., 200650Decoction of CHM36 (19/16), NA (4–14)Biyankang capsules23 (13/10), NA (4.5–13)10Efficacy, IgE
M: Male; F: female; CHM: Chinese herbal medicine; NA: not available; IgE: immunoglobulin E

Table 2.

Methodological quality of included randomized, controlled trials
StudyRandomized methodBlindingDropouts or withdrawalsJadad score
Luo et al., 201732ClaimedUnclearNo1
Hong et al., 201733Stochastic indicator methodUnclearNo2
Zhao et al., 201634ClaimedUnclearNo1
Wang et al., 201635Stochastic indicator methodUnclearNo2
Liang, 201636ClaimedUnclearNo1
Hu et al., 201637Stochastic indicator methodUnclearNo2
Liu, 201438Stochastic indicator methodUnclearNo2
Yu, 201539ClaimedUnclearNo1
Zhou, 201440ClaimedUnclearNo1
Zhang, 201441ClaimedUnclearNo1
Guo et al., 201442ClaimedUnclearNo1
Chen, 201443Stochastic indicator methodUnclearNo2
Wang, 201344ClaimedUnclearNo1
Luo, 201345ClaimedUnclearNo1
Wang, 201246Stochastic indicator methodUnclearNo2
Yang, 201047ClaimedUnclearNo1
Chen, 201048ClaimedUnclearNo1
Yuan et al., 200949ClaimedUnclearNo1
Zhao et al., 200650ClaimedUnclearNo1

Meta-analysis of curing AR in children

Efficacy rate

As is shown in Figure 2, 11 studies mentioned the efficacy rate difference between CHM and loratadine.,,,,, A total of 956 patients were included (480 patients in the CHM group, 476 patients in the control group). The fixed-effects model was applied for statistical analysis because the 11 studies did not show heterogeneity (chi-square = 4.53, P = 0.92, I2 = 0%). Our analysis suggested that CHM could effectively improve the efficacy rate compared with loratadine (OR 3.32; 95% CI, 2.32–4.76; P < 0. 001) (Figure 2).
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10.1177_0300060518786905-fig2.jpg
Efficacy rate using CHM versus loratadine. CHM: Chinese herbal medicine

Scores of symptoms

Among all 19 studies, 2 of them selected scores of the symptoms as one of their outcome measures., A total of 170 patients were included (85 patients in the CHM group, 85 patients in the control group). For the symptom of sneezing, there was statistical heterogeneity between these two clinical trials after testing for heterogeneity (chi-square = 24.78, P < 0.001, I2 = 96%). Therefore, the random-effects model was used, and it showed a significant difference between the CHM and control groups (MD −1.24; 95% CI, −2.33 to −0.14; P = 0.03) (Figure 3a). For the symptom of a running nose, there was statistical heterogeneity between these two clinical trials after testing for heterogeneity (chi-square = 22.61, P < 0.001, I2 = 96%). Therefore, the random-effects model was used, and it showed a significant difference between the CHM and control groups (MD −1.32; 95% CI, −2.58 to −0.05; P = 0.04) (Figure 3b). For the symptom of nasal congestion, there was statistical heterogeneity between these two clinical trials after testing for heterogeneity (chi-square = 4.97, P = 0.03, I2 = 80%). Therefore, the random-effects model was used, and it showed a significant difference between the CHM and control groups (MD −0.70; 95% CI, −1.05 to −0.36; P < 0.001) (Figure 3c). For the symptom of nasal itching, there was statistical heterogeneity between these two clinical trials after testing for heterogeneity (chi-square = 29.44, P < 0.001, I2 = 97%). Therefore, the random-effects model was used, but it showed no significant difference between the CHM and control groups (MD−1.37; 95% CI, −3.96 to 1.22, P = 0.30) (Figure 3d).
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10.1177_0300060518786905-fig3.jpg
Scores of the symptoms using CHM versus controls. (a) Sneezing. (b) Running nose. (c) Nasal congestion. (d) Nasal itching. CHM: Chinese herbal medicine

Recurrence rate

As shown in Figure 2, five studies described the difference in recurrence rate between CHM and loratadine.,,,, A total of 405 patients were included (205 patients in the CHM group, 200 patients in the control group). The fixed-effects model was applied for statistical analysis because the five studies did not show heterogeneity (chi-square = 1.95, P = 0.74, I2 = 0%). The analysis showed that CHM could effectively improve the efficacy rate compared with controls (OR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.49; P < 0.001) (Figure 4).
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10.1177_0300060518786905-fig4.jpg
Recurrence rate using CHM versus controls. CHM: Chinese herbal medicine

IgE

Among the 19 studies, two of them selected IgE as one of their outcome measures., A total of 118 patients were included (65 patients in the CHM group, 53 patients in the control group). The fixed-effects model was applied for statistical analysis because the two studies did not show heterogeneity (chi-square = 1.02, P = 0.31, I2 = 2%). The analysis showed that CHM could effectively decrease IgE levels compared with the control group (MD −46.01; 95% CI, −57.53 to −34.48; P < 0.001) (Figure 5).
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10.1177_0300060518786905-fig5.jpg
IgE levels using CHM versus controls. CHM: Chinese herbal medicine

Publication bias

An “inverted funnel” pattern analysis was used to confirm publication bias. The asymmetrical figure indicated potential publication bias that might affect the results (Figure 6).
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10.1177_0300060518786905-fig6.jpg
Funnel plot. Annotations: comparison = CHM group versus the control group; outcome = effective rate. CHM: Chinese herbal medicine

Adverse reactions

Four patients experienced skin rash in the CHM group who were treated with Wenfei Zhiliu Dan, and no other adverse reactions were reported. Adverse reactions in the control group included drowsiness, nosebleed, fever, thirst, skin rash, and fatigue. However, calculating the incidence of adverse reactions was difficult because of insufficient adverse events reported.

Discussion

In this study, we systematically evaluated and analyzed previous literature on RCTs regarding the efficacy of CHM in clinical treatment of AR in children. We found that CHM could effectively improve the efficacy rate compared with loratadine. CHM may have advantages in terms of the recurrence rate and the scores of symptoms, such as sneezing, running nose, and nasal congestion, but not nasal itching. CHM may also reduce IgE levels compared with controls.
According to the TCM theory, the nose is the orifice of the lung. The pathogeny of AR as “Feng Xie” leads to obstruction of lung-qi, which triggers symptoms, including sneezing, running nose, nasal congestion, and nasal itching. Therefore, therapeutic methods are focused on dispelling the Feng Xie and relaxing the depressed lung-qi. This type of theory is the foundation for CHM formula on AR. The mechanism of CHM on AR may include controlling the balance of T helper 1/T helper 2, suppressing eosinophilic activity, reducing IgE levels, regulating allergenic cell degranulation, and antihistamines.
There are some limitations concerning this study. First, the RCTs that were included in this study were limited and the sample sizes were small. Therefore, ruling out the influence of contingency factors is difficult. Second, the overall methodological quality of the included RCTs was not high. Although all of 19 studies stated that they used the random method, only 6 of them elaborated on the details of the stochastic method.,,,,, No studies claimed a double-blind method. There was no withdrawal or dropout described. In fact, there was a high possibility of selection bias and measurement bias. Third, publication bias cannot be fully excluded without sufficient studies. In this review, an inverted funnel plot (Figure 6) showed that the publication bias might have affected the results. Some results of our study showed high heterogeneity (Figure 3). There was a high possibility of measurement bias. Finally, the intervention duration in the included articles ranged from 10 to 56 days. However, unfortunately, there is no relevant standard for the time of intervention.
Therefore, ensuring that the trials were properly conducted is difficult. Consequently, we are unable to make confirmative conclusions. High-quality, large-sample, RCTs still need to be performed in the future.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

1. Ait-Khaled N, Pearce N, Anderson HR, et al. Global map of the prevalence of symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis in children: The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Phase Three. Allergy 2009; 64: 123–148. [PubMed[]
2. Zhang Y, Zhang L. Prevalence of allergic rhinitis in China. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2014; 6: 105–113. [PMC free article] [PubMed[]
3. Kurukulaaratchy RJ, Karmaus W, Arshad SH. Sex and atopy influences on the natural history of rhinitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2012; 12: 7–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed[]
4. Pinart M, Keller T, Reich A, et al. Sex-related allergic rhinitis prevalence switch from childhood to adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2017; 172: 224–235. [PubMed[]
5. Skoner DP. Allergic rhinitis: definition, epidemiology, pathophysiology, detection, and diagnosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 108: S2–S8. [PubMed[]
6. Morais-Almeida M, Gaspar A, Pires G, et al. Risk factors for asthma symptoms at school age: an 8-year prospective study. Allergy Asthma Proc 2007; 28: 183–189. [PubMed[]
7. Leynaert B, Neukirch F, Demoly P, et al. Epidemiologic evidence for asthma and rhinitis comorbidity. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000; 106(5 Suppl): S201–S205. [PubMed[]
8. Canonica GW, Bousquet J, Mullol J, et al. A survey of the burden of allergic rhinitis in Europe. Allergy 2007; 62 Suppl 85: 17–25. [PubMed[]
9. Meltzer EO, Blaiss MS, Derebery MJ, et al. Burden of allergic rhinitis: results from the Pediatric Allergies in America survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009; 124: S43–S70. [PubMed[]
10. Walker S, Khan-Wasti S, Fletcher M, et al. Seasonal allergic rhinitis is associated with a detrimental effect on examination performance in United Kingdom teenagers: case- control study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 120: 381–387. [PubMed[]
11. Simons FE. Learning impairment and allergic rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Proc 1996; 17: 185–189. [PubMed[]
12. Ibero M, Justicia JL, Alvaro M, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis in children: results of the PETRA study. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 2012; 40: 138–143. [PubMed[]
13. Novembre E, Galli E, Landi F, et al. Coseasonal sublingual immunotherapy reduces the development of asthma in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004; 114: 851–857. [PubMed[]
14. Inal A, Altintas DU, Yilmaz M, et al. Prevention of new sensitizations by specific immunotherapy in children with rhinitis and/or asthma monosensitized to house dust mite. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2007; 17: 85–91. [PubMed[]
15. Bousquet J, Khaltaev N, Cruz AA, et al. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2008 update (in collaboration with the World Health Organization, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen). Allergy 2008; 63 Suppl 86: 8–160. [PubMed[]
16. Bernstein DI, Schwartz G, Bernstein JA. Allergic rhinitis: mechanisms and treatmentImmunol Allergy Clin North Am 2016; 36: 261–278. [PubMed[]
17. Bousquet J, Van Cauwenberge P, Bachert C, et al. Requirements for medications commonly used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)Allergy 2003; 58: 192–197. [PubMed[]
18. Nurmatov U, van Schayck CP, Hurwitz B, et al. House dust mite avoidance measures for perennial allergic rhinitis: an updated Cochrane systematic review. Allergy 2012; 67: 158–165. [PubMed[]
19. Trangsrud AJ, Whitaker AL, Small RE. Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitisPharmacotherapy 2002; 22: 1458–1467. [PubMed[]
20. Scadding GK. Intranasal steroid sprays in the treatment of rhinitis is one better than another? J Laryngol Otol 2004; 118: 395–396; author reply 396. [PubMed[]
21. Skoner DP, Rachelefsky GS, Meltzer EO, et al. Detection of growth suppression in children during treatment with intranasal beclomethasone dipropionate. Pediatrics 2000; 105: E23. [PubMed[]
22. Brozek JL, Bousquet J, Baena-Cagnani CE, et al. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 revision. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 126: 466–476. [PubMed[]
23. Ciprandi G, Marseglia GL, Castagnoli R, et al. From IgE to clinical trials of allergic rhinitis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2015; 11: 1321–1333. [PubMed[]
24. Chervinsky P, Casale T, Townley R, et al. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, in the treatment of adults and adolescents with perennial allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2003; 91: 160–167. [PubMed[]
25. Licari A, Castagnoli R, Panfili E, et al. An update on anti-IgE therapy in pediatric respiratory diseases. Curr Respir Med Rev 2017; 13: 22–29. [PMC free article] [PubMed[]
26. Huang TP, Liu PH, Lien AS, et al. A nationwide population-based study of traditional Chinese medicine usage in children in Taiwan. Complement Ther Med 2014; 22: 500–510. [PubMed[]
27. Kung YY, Chen YC, Hwang SJ, et al. The prescriptions frequencies and patterns of Chinese herbal medicine for allergic rhinitis in Taiwan. Allergy 2006; 61: 1316–1318. [PubMed[]
28. Xue CC, Thien FC, Zhang JJ, et al. Treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis by Chinese herbal medicine: a randomized placebo controlled trialAltern Ther Health Med 2003; 9: 80–87. [PubMed[]
29. Zhang X, Lan F, Zhang Y, et al. Chinese herbal medicine to treat allergic rhinitis: evidence from a meta-analysis. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2018; 10: 34–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed[]
30. Wang S, Tang Q, Qian W, et al. Meta-analysis of clinical trials on traditional Chinese herbal medicine for treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis. Allergy 2012; 67: 583–592. [PubMed[]
31. Luo J, Yu T, Zhang M. Suhuang Zhike Capsule in the treatment of paediatric allergic rhinitis for 30 casesChinese Medicine Modern Distance Education of China 2017; 15: 94–95. []
32. Hong JY, Tong LM, Huang WX. Effect of Tongqiao decoction in treating allergic rhinitis in childrenZhejiang J Tradit Chin Med 2017; 52: 810. []
33. Zhao Y. and Zheng J. Clinical observation of Yangyin Yiqi decoction in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in childrenPractical Clinical Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine 2016; 16: 16–18. []
34. Wang XJ. Clinical effect analysis of Xiaoqinglong decoction in treating allergic rhinitis in childrenHealth Care Today 2016; 1: 164–64. []
35. Liang GQ. The clinical observation of biminsan on 60 pediatric allergic rhinitisJournal of Chinese Ophthalmology and Otorhinolaryngology 2016; 6: 143–144. []
36. Hu TY, Xu FJ, Li S. Clinical observation of Wenfei Zhiliu Pill combined with Shenling Baizhu San in treatment of allergic rhinitis in childrenJournal of Nw Cinese Mdicine 2016; 48: 137–139. []
37. Liu X. A clinical observation on Guizhi decoction for allergic rhinitis in childrenHenan Tradit Chin Med 2014; 34: 1885–1886. []
38. Yu J. Treatment of allergic rhinitis in children by TCMMedical Information 2015; 28: 39–39. []
39. Zhou H, Shao ZY, Lian JL. Curative effect analysis of 60 cases of pediatric allergic rhinitis treated with Shufengtongqiao decoctionJ Pedia Tradit Chin Med 2014; 10: 48–50. []
40. Zhang Y. Effect of Buzhong Yiqi decoction combined with Yuping Feng San in treatment of allergic rhinitis in childrenMedicine & People 2014; 27: 122. []
41. Guo XY, Cheng WL. Clinical observation of Biminyan decoction in treating allergic rhinitis in childrenThe Journal of Medical Theory and Practice 2014; 27: 3165–65, 66. []
42. Chen QQ. Treatment of pediatric allergic rhinitis by Xiaoqinglong decoction: a clinical studyMedical Information 2014; 2014: 55–55, 56. []
43. Wang XL. The clinical effect of Yupingfeng San combined with Guomin decoction on 50 allergic rhinitis in childrenJournal of New Chinese Medicine 2013; 45: 80–81. []
44. Luo GW. Clinical research of Qingre Tongqiao San in treating allergic rhinitis in childrenJ Emerg Tradit Chin Med 2013; 22: 2095–2096. []
45. Wang JC. Treatment of allergic rhinitis in children by Wumei Cangerzi San: a clinical observationTraditional Chinese Medicinal Research 2012; 25: 21–23. []
46. Yang H. Clinical observation of Yupingfeng Granule in treating allergic rhinitis in childrenJ Pediatrics of TCM 2010; 6: 23–25. []
47. Chen WY. 35 cases of pediatric allergic rhinitis of pulmonosplenic asthenia type treated by Gu Biao Jian Pi decoctionChina Journal of Chinese Medicine 2010; 25: 316–317. []
48. Yuan B, Han XM, Zhu XK, et al. Clinical observation of Bimin mixture in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in childrenChinese Journal of Information on TCM 2009; 16: 74–75. []
49. Zhao XY, Gao GQ. Clinical research of Erma decoction in treating allergic rhinitis in childrenShandong Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine 2006; 25: 166–167. []
50. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1–12. [PubMed[]
51. Yan GH, Jin GY, Li GS, et al. The possible mechanism of inhibitory effect of xanthium strumarium on mast cells activated by compound 48/80Progress of Anatomical Sciences 2010; 16: 164–66 + 70. []
52. Wen Z, Xu SQ, Zhou GY, et al. Effect of Bimin tablet on nasal mucosa' histamine from the model of guinea pig allergic rhinitisHunan Guiding Journal of TCMP 2002; 8: 500–502. []
53. Wang SP. Effect of Mahuang Fuzi Xixin decoction on T lymphocyte subsets in allergic rhinitisLiaoning Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine 2002; 29: 562–563. []
54. Pei NZ, Shu HJ. Clinical observation of Yupingfeng granule in treating allergic rhinitisChin J Otorhinolaryngol Integ Med 2003; 11: 241. []
55. Huang QS, Li JM, Liu HY, et al. Clinical and experimental research of Xiao Chaihu decoction in treating allergic rhinitisChin J Otorhinolaryngol Integ Med 1996; 4: 76–78. []

Articles from The Journal of International Medical Research are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου

Αρχειοθήκη ιστολογίου