International archives of allergy and immunology · 2025
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Second-Generation Antihistamines Treatments for Chronic Urticaria: A Network Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisСравнительное исследованиеСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tian Han-Ying, Xu Chao, Liu Cheng-Jiang, Li Yu-Zhen
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The latest international joint guideline supports the use of second-generation H1 antihistamines (sgAHs) as the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials of various types of sgAHs in the treatment of CSU up to March 2025. For efficacy, the primary outcome was the change from baseline in the total symptom score, while the secondary outcomes were pruritus score and wheal score. For safety, the total numbers of all withdrawals due to adverse events and common adverse effects were extracted for each treatment, which included central nervous system side effects and anticholinergic side effects.
RESULTS: We identified and included 24 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 5,172 patients. Ebastine ranked first in the total symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD)\ -2.80 [95% confidence interval (CI):-5.12 to -0.47]) and pruritus score (SMD -1.10 [95% CI: -2.06 to -0.13]), while olopatadine ranked first in the wheal score (SMD -0.84 [95% CI: -1.37 to -0.32]). Bepotastine besilate had a significantly lower incidence of somnolence in adverse events (odds ratio 0.15 [95% CI: 0.03-0.69]) than other sgAHs.
CONCLUSION: Both ebastine and olopatadine showed promising efficacy, and no significant differences were found in acceptability and safety compared with placebo. There are no meaningful differences in safety risks between different second-generation antihistamines.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials of various types of sgAHs in the treatment of CSU up to March 2025. For efficacy, the primary outcome was the change from baseline in the total symptom score, while the secondary outcomes were pruritus score and wheal score. For safety, the total numbers of all withdrawals due to adverse events and common adverse effects were extracted for each treatment, which included central nervous system side effects and anticholinergic side effects.
RESULTS: We identified and included 24 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 5,172 patients. Ebastine ranked first in the total symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD)\ -2.80 [95% confidence interval (CI):-5.12 to -0.47]) and pruritus score (SMD -1.10 [95% CI: -2.06 to -0.13]), while olopatadine ranked first in the wheal score (SMD -0.84 [95% CI: -1.37 to -0.32]). Bepotastine besilate had a significantly lower incidence of somnolence in adverse events (odds ratio 0.15 [95% CI: 0.03-0.69]) than other sgAHs.
CONCLUSION: Both ebastine and olopatadine showed promising efficacy, and no significant differences were found in acceptability and safety compared with placebo. There are no meaningful differences in safety risks between different second-generation antihistamines.