Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: An evidence-based focused 2017 guideline update

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

T2 - An evidence-based focused 2017 guideline update

AU - Workgroup Chair and Cochair

AU - Dykewicz, Mark S.

AU - Wallace, Dana V.

AU - Baroody, Fuad

AU - Bernstein, Jonathan

AU - Craig, Tim

AU - Finegold, Ira

AU - Huang, Faith

AU - Larenas-Linnemann, Desiree

AU - Meltzer, Eli

AU - Steven, Gary

AU - Bernstein, David I.

AU - Blessing-Moore, Joann

AU - Dinakar, Chitra

AU - Greenhawt, Matthew

AU - Horner, Caroline C.

AU - Khan, David A.

AU - Lang, David

AU - Oppenheimer, John

AU - Portnoy, Jay M.

AU - Randolph, Christopher R.

AU - Rank, Matthew A.

AU - Dykewicz, Mark S.

AU - Wallace, Dana V.

N1 - Funding Information: Rescue medications included levocabastine nasal spray (50 mg per puff) and sodium cromoglycate eye-drops. The study was supported by grants and received no support from the pharmaceutical industry. Funding Information: Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgment Support for judgment Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Study is randomized, but authors did not disclose the sequence generation. Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Allocation concealment not disclosed by the authors. Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Unclear risk Described as a double-blind, double-dummy study, but details were not disclosed by the authors. Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk Clinician assessed the primary outcome at day 0, 7, 14 Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Sample size was not met to detect significance Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Outcomes intended to be studied were reviewed. Other bias Unclear risk Study funded by grant from Glaxo Wellcome Inc. pharmaceutical company Specific Care Question: Funding Information: Per protocol analysis performed on Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF) Other bias Unclear risk Study funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Research Triangle Park, NC. Primary investigator Nathan and Nelson are consult speakers and recipient of research grants for GSK. All other authors/investigators are employees of GSK. Drugs manufactured by GSK involved in the study. Funding Information: Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgment Support for judgment Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer generated randomization schedule Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Authors did not disclose how allocation was concealed Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Unclear risk Double-blind, additional efforts to maintain blinding not discussed Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) High risk Participants reflexively self-recorded outcomes every 12 hours in a diary Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Authors did not disclose how many participants were needed from the power analysis to detect significance; In supplemental study materials, the authors disclose the ITT population of N = 607 which does not reflect the number of randomized participants N = 610. Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Other bias Unclear risk Study funded by Med Pointe Pharmaceuticals, Somerset, New Jersey Funding Information: Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgment Support for judgment Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Participants were randomized to treatment by a computer generated randomization schedule. Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Computer generated randomization schedule was accessible only to authorized persons who were not involved in the study Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Low risk The identity of the study medications were concealed through use of a device (Pharmask Inc, Medfield, Massachusetts) that prevented identification of the product but allowed for the proper administration of the nasal sprays. Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) High risk Participants reflexively self-recorded outcomes every 12 hours in a diary Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk In supplemental study materials, the authors disclose the ITT population of N = 151 which does not reflect the number of randomized participants N = 147; low risk would have been attributed to this bias as the analysis population is very close to the ITT population; however, the authors did not disclose the needed sample size therefore high risk was assigned. Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Other bias Unclear risk Study funded by Med Pointe Pharmaceuticals

PY - 2017/12

Y1 - 2017/12

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034986939&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034986939&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.anai.2017.08.012

DO - 10.1016/j.anai.2017.08.012

M3 - Article

C2 - 29103802

AN - SCOPUS:85034986939

VL - 119

SP - 489-511.e41

JO - Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

JF - Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

SN - 1081-1206

IS - 6

ER -