TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and Safety of Oral Antihistamines for Allergic Rhinitis
T2 - Network Meta-Analysis
AU - ARIA 2024-2025 Guideline Panel
AU - Vieira, Rafael José
AU - Gil-Mata, Sara
AU - Ferreira, André
AU - Riera-Serra, Pau
AU - Bognanni, Antonio
AU - Duarte, Vítor Henrique
AU - Viegas, Hugo
AU - Pereira, Ana Margarida
AU - Ferreira-da-Silva, Renato
AU - Ferreira-Cardoso, Henrique
AU - Marques-Cruz, Manuel
AU - Castro-Teles, João
AU - Campos-Lopes, Miguel
AU - Teixeira-Ferreira, Ana
AU - Lourenço-Silva, Nuno
AU - Boechat, José Laerte
AU - Borowiack, Ewa
AU - Sadowska, Ewelina
AU - Costa, Raquel Albuquerque
AU - Perestrelo, Paula
AU - Pereira, Marta Soares
AU - Pereira-Macedo, Juliana
AU - Ierodiakonou, Despo
AU - Chu, Alexandro W.L.
AU - Calvi, Izabela Pera
AU - Torres, Maria Inês
AU - Silva Ribeiro, Rita A.
AU - Thomander, Tuuli
AU - Valiulis, Arunas
AU - Cherrez-Ojeda, Ivan
AU - Bedbrook, Anna
AU - Klimek, Ludger
AU - Yepes Nuñez, Juan Jose
AU - Zuberbier, Torsten
AU - Fonseca, João A.
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
AU - Bousquet, Jean
AU - Sousa-Pinto, Bernardo
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2026 The Authors
PY - 2026/5
Y1 - 2026/5
N2 - Background: Oral H1-antihistamines (OAHs) are among the most frequently used medications for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Objective: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of individual OAHs in patients with AR. Methods: We searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trial databases for randomized controlled trials assessing adults with perennial or seasonal AR, and comparing (1) OAH versus placebo or (2) different individual OAHs. We performed a network meta-analysis on the Total Nasal Symptom Score, Total Ocular Symptom Score, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire, development of adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Certainty of evidence for comparisons involving the most clinically relevant second-generation OAHs was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment and Evaluation approach to network meta-analysis. Results: We included 74 randomized controlled trials (21 on perennial AR and 53 on seasonal AR). Cetirizine, ebastine, bilastine, and rupatadine were among the individual medications associated with the highest efficacy for improving nasal symptoms. For other efficacy outcomes, the most efficacious interventions varied. A similar frequency of adverse events was observed among different individual second-generation OAHs, with serious adverse events being rare. For most comparisons, the certainty of evidence was rated as “low” or “very low,” indicating substantial uncertainty regarding the treatment effects. Conclusions: Although some OAHs seem to be more efficacious than others, most of the differences between individual second-generation medications are trivial or small. In addition, we did not find any relevant differences in the safety profiles of second-generation OAHs.
AB - Background: Oral H1-antihistamines (OAHs) are among the most frequently used medications for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Objective: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of individual OAHs in patients with AR. Methods: We searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trial databases for randomized controlled trials assessing adults with perennial or seasonal AR, and comparing (1) OAH versus placebo or (2) different individual OAHs. We performed a network meta-analysis on the Total Nasal Symptom Score, Total Ocular Symptom Score, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire, development of adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Certainty of evidence for comparisons involving the most clinically relevant second-generation OAHs was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment and Evaluation approach to network meta-analysis. Results: We included 74 randomized controlled trials (21 on perennial AR and 53 on seasonal AR). Cetirizine, ebastine, bilastine, and rupatadine were among the individual medications associated with the highest efficacy for improving nasal symptoms. For other efficacy outcomes, the most efficacious interventions varied. A similar frequency of adverse events was observed among different individual second-generation OAHs, with serious adverse events being rare. For most comparisons, the certainty of evidence was rated as “low” or “very low,” indicating substantial uncertainty regarding the treatment effects. Conclusions: Although some OAHs seem to be more efficacious than others, most of the differences between individual second-generation medications are trivial or small. In addition, we did not find any relevant differences in the safety profiles of second-generation OAHs.
KW - Allergic rhinitis
KW - Network meta-analysis
KW - Oral antihistamines
KW - Systematic review
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105033921124
U2 - 10.1016/j.jaip.2025.12.034
DO - 10.1016/j.jaip.2025.12.034
M3 - Article
C2 - 41707943
AN - SCOPUS:105033921124
SN - 2213-2198
VL - 14
SP - 1175
EP - 1183
JO - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
JF - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
IS - 5
ER -