1131 Combination of montelukast and loratadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis: An analysis of three spring studies

Montelukast for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial performed in the spring

“…1)) were similar to those seen in previous loratadine studies [35,36], as well as in recent studies of desloratadine, a metabolite of loratadine [37]. A statistical comparison between montelukast and loratadine was not included prospectively in the design of this study, as results from earlier studies [21,38] had suggested that very large patient numbers would be needed for sufficient statistical power to differentiate montelukast from loratadine. On inspection of symptom score data from the present study, mean changes from baseline numerically favoured montelukast over loratadine for the night‐time symptoms score (difficulty going to sleep, night‐time awakenings, congestion upon awakening); while daytime nasal, eye, and daily composite scores numerically favoured loratadine.…”

Montelukast for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial performed in the spring

“…1)) were similar to those seen in previous loratadine studies [35,36], as well as in recent studies of desloratadine, a metabolite of loratadine [37]. A statistical comparison between montelukast and loratadine was not included prospectively in the design of this study, as results from earlier studies [21,38] had suggested that very large patient numbers would be needed for suf®cient statistical power to differentiate montelukast from loratadine. On inspection of symptom score data from the present study, mean changes from baseline numerically favoured montelukast over loratadine for the nighttime symptoms score (dif®culty going to sleep, night-time awakenings, congestion upon awakening); while daytime nasal, eye, and daily composite scores numerically favoured loratadine.…”

The Efficacy and Safety of Selective H1-Antihistamine versus Leukotriene Receptor Antagonist for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis

“…According to the searching strategy, 25 potentially relevant studies were chosen. Based on the inclusion criteria and criteria, 9 studies [16] – [24] were included into this meta-analysis and 16 were excluded ( Fig. 1 ).…”

“…Eight studies [16] – [20] , [22] – [24] compared the efficacy of SAH and LTRA for SAR. Among these studies, six [16] – [20] , [22] with respect to the DNSS, five [16] – [19] , [22] on the DESS, seven [16] – [20] , [22] , [23] on the CSS, six [16] – [19] , [22] , [24] reporting on the NSS and four [17] – [19] , [22] examined the RQOLS. Meanwhile, seven studies [16] – [19] , [21] – [23] examined the adverse events for SAH and LTRA ( Table 1 ).…”

“…Six studies [16] – [19] , [22] , [24] with 9 comparisons, including 2023 patients who took LTRA orally and 1734 who took SAH, compared the NSS of SAH and LTRA for SAR. LTRA performed better than SAH with respect to the NSS for SAR (MD = −0.04, 95% CI, −0.05 to −0.02, P = 0.000, I 2 = 97%) ( Table 2 and Fig.…”