日本語View as Markdown

Efficacy of different nasal irrigation treatments versus placebo in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

アレルギー性鼻炎に対する各種鼻腔洗浄法の有効性:システマティックレビューおよびネットワークメタ解析

meta-analysis topical application mixed

Abstract

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the comparative efficacy of various nasal irrigation agents in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). Seven databases were searched through March 2025, yielding 23 eligible studies encompassing 3,584 participants. Primary outcomes were Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) and secondary outcomes were Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores. For nasal symptom relief, resveratrol ranked highest (MD: −7.7, 95% CrI: −14.0 to −1.1; SUCRA = 92.08%), followed by budesonide (MD: −5.6; SUCRA = 83.39%). For quality-of-life improvement, cinnamon bark ranked first (MD: −1.3; SUCRA = 95.78%), with hydrogen-rich water ranking second (MD: −1.2, 95% CrI: −2.4 to 0.10; SUCRA = 82.58%), though its credibility interval marginally included zero. Fluticasone also demonstrated significant improvement. The findings suggest that botanical agents, including resveratrol and cinnamon, as well as hydrogen-rich water, may offer clinically relevant benefits as nasal irrigation solutions for AR.

Mechanism

The specific mechanism of hydrogen-rich water in nasal irrigation was not detailed in this meta-analysis; antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties are presumed to underlie any observed benefit.

Bibliographic

Authors
Hu Q, Kong L, Zhou YN, Shen W, Sun YP, Deng J
Journal
Front Pharmacol
Year
2025
PMID
41293244
DOI
10.3389/fphar.2025.1670372
PMC
PMC12641607

Tags

Delivery:局所投与 Mechanism:抗酸化酵素 免疫調節 炎症抑制 酸化ストレス 活性酸素種

Delivery context

Topical applications have localized-effect reports, but systemic hydrogen intake is most efficient via inhalation. Inhalation carries explosion risk (empirical LFL of 10%; high-concentration devices are not recommended).

Safety notes

Topical applications have localized-effect reports, but systemic hydrogen intake is most efficient via inhalation. Inhalation carries explosion risk (empirical LFL of 10%; high-concentration devices are not recommended).

See also:

Cite as: H2 Papers — PMID 41293244. https://h2-papers.org/en/papers/41293244
Source: PubMed PMID 41293244