Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of oral treatments for allergic rhinitis in children: A network meta-analysis

Thomander T, Gil-Mata S, Riera-Serra P, Vieira RJ, Ferreira A, Bognanni A, Duarte VH, Viegas H et al.

Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 2026

906 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Allergic rhinitis is the most common chronic disease in children. Information on efficacy and safety of oral allergic rhinitis treatments in children is scarce. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral medications for allergic rhinitis in children.

Methods: We performed a systematic review, searching three bibliographic databases and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials assessing the use of oral antihistamines (OAH) or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) in children (<12 years old) with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis. Evaluated outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), the Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS), the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), development of adverse or serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We performed network meta-analysis at both class and individual treatment levels. Certainty in the body of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach for network meta-analysis.

Results: We included eight primary studies with 906 participants. Overall, OAH were more effective against placebo in improving the TNSS (mean difference (MD) = -1.60; 95%CI = -2.25 to -0.95). On the other hand, OAH+LTRA did not demonstrate additional benefit over OAH in improving the TNSS (MD = -0.15; 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.88), and there were no important differences between individual OAH. Evidence on the TOSS was not found. No significant differences in the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 906 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free