The efficacy and safety of high-dose nonsedating antihistamines in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
Abstract
Background: Standard doses of second-generation H1-antihistamines (sgAHs) as first-line treatment are not always effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and hence an increase in the dose of sgAHs is recommended. However, literature evaluating the efficacy and safety of this treatment remains inconclusive, highlighting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose sgAHs compared with standard-dose sgAHs in treating CSU.
Methods: A systematic literature search of double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCT) utilizing multiple doses of sgAHs was performed by searching the electronic databases Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane databases, and Web of Science. Bibliographies were also manually searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for assessing risk of bias was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias independently. The response rate, the number of adverse events, somnolence, and withdrawal due to adverse events were extracted from each article. The data were combined and analyzed to quantify the safety and efficacy of the treatment. RevMan (V5.3) software was used for data synthesis.
Results: A total of 13 studies were identified, seven of which met the eligibility criteria for the meta-analysis. Our pooled meta-analyses showed that…
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.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
- Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study
- The quality and reliability of short videos about hypertension on TikTok: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study
- Association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and hypertension: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007–2018
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.