Herbal Medicines for Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To analyze and compare the effects of herbal medicines (HMs) for treating different forms of rhinosinusitis. RECENT FINDINGS: Forty-seven randomized controlled trials evaluating 18 HMs in six different rhinosinusitis populations were included in the network meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. For the common cold, Pelargonium sidoides offered the most beneficial effect on symptom improvement (moderate certainty of evidence). For acute post-viral rhinosinusitis, Cineole and Pelargonium sidoides were the most effective treatments for controlling symptoms (moderate certainty), while Spicae aetheroleum was most effective for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvement (moderate certainty). For chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), Origanum vulgare was the most beneficial treatment for improving symptoms and HRQoL (low certainty). Evidence of HMs for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and unclassified chronic rhinosinusitis was restricted to a limited number of studies. Adverse events should be of concern in some HMs, such as Spicae aetheroleum or Mytorl. Several HMs improved patient-important outcomes, above minimal clinically important differences, in treating common cold, acute post-viral rhinosinusitis, and CRSsNP. Further studies with adequate sample sizes and long-term follow-ups are warranted to support the current evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42022328265 May 10, 2022.

Herbal Medicines for Allergic Rhinitis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the effects of herbal medicine (HM) therapy in various durations and analyze the effects of HM separately by mechanism of action in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). RECENT FINDINGS: Thirty-two studies were included (2,697 patients, mean age 34.6 years). For the ≤ 4 weeks of treatment duration, HM brought greater benefits over placebo in reduction of total nasal symptoms score (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98, -0.38; p <0.01) and improvement in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.81, -0.25; p <0.01). For the 4-12 weeks duration, total nasal symptoms score (SMD -0.22; 95%CI -0.4, -0.05; p =0.01) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.48; 95% CI -0.89, -0.06; p =0.03) favored the HM. However, HM therapy for longer than 12 weeks was related to tachyphylaxis and showed no benefit over placebo in any outcomes. There was no difference between the HM and standard treatment on symptoms improvement. Anti-allergic effect, anti-inflammatory effect, anti-leukotriene effect, and anti-histaminic effect of HM were revealed. HM was safe and their adverse effects were comparable placebo. HM therapy is safe and provides better results than placebo in improving nasal symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in patients with AR. Its beneficial effects are demonstrated only in less than 12 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42020168367.