The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1 of 6.

REVIEW ARTICLE
© JLO (1984) Limited, 2017
doi:10.1017/S002221511700192X

Antihistamines for treating rhinosinusitis:

systematic review and meta-analysis of
randomised controlled studies

K SERESIRIKACHORN1, L KHATTIYAWITTAYAKUN1, W CHITSUTHIPAKORN2,

K SNIDVONGS1
1
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, and 2Department of
Otolaryngology, Sawan Pracharak Hospital, Nakhon Sawan, Thailand

Abstract
Background: Without the release of histamines, patients with rhinosinusitis may not benefit from antihistamines.
Additionally, anticholinergic effects may do more harm than good. This study aimed to investigate the
effectiveness of antihistamines in treating rhinosinusitis.
Methods: An electronic search was performed. Randomised controlled trials comparing antihistamines with
either placebo or other treatments for patients with rhinosinusitis were selected.
Results: Two studies (184 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Loratadine decreased nasal obstruction in allergic
rhinitis patients with acute rhinosinusitis (mean difference = −0.58; confidence interval = −0.85 to −0.31, p <
0.01), but had no benefit on total symptom score (mean difference = −1.25; confidence interval = −2.77
to 0.27, p = 0.11), or rhinorrhoea symptoms (mean difference = −0.06; confidence interval = −0.37 to 0.25,
p = 0.71).
Conclusion: There is limited evidence to support the use of antihistamines in treating rhinosinusitis. The number
of included studies in this systematic review is limited. Antihistamines may relieve nasal obstruction in allergic
rhinitis patients with acute rhinosinusitis.

Key words: Histamine Antagonists; Sinusitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Nasal Obstruction

Introduction pathophysiology of rhinosinusitis is not related to the

Rhinosinusitis is defined as inflammation of the nose release of histamine from mast cells.4
and paranasal sinuses. Hence, anti-inflammatory Nevertheless, antihistamines are commonly used in
agents, such as corticosteroids,1 macrolides with anti- treating rhinosinusitis. Wang and colleagues conducted
neutrophilic function,2 and doxycycline with anti- a survey on the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis, which
matrix metalloproteinase 9 activity,3 are part of the revealed that antihistamine was the most commonly
comprehensive medical treatment. Although com- prescribed medication by Asian paediatricians, and in
monly used in treating rhinosinusitis, antihistamines the top three medicines prescribed by Asian physi-
may not be beneficial. cians.5 Antihistamines were the most commonly pre-
Antihistamines are histamine H1 receptor reverse scribed medicine for treating mild acute rhinosinusitis.
agonists; they should be efficacious in treating rhinitis, This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness
not rhinosinusitis. The anticholinergic property of first- and adverse events of antihistamines in treating both
generation antihistamines increases the viscosity of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis, when
discharge. It inhibits ciliary beat, as cilia do not work compared to placebo and other treatments.
effectively in dry nasal mucosa. These effects poten-
tially cause more harm than benefit in treating rhinosi-
Materials and methods
nusitis. Second-generation antihistamines do not have
an anticholinergic property, and thus do not cause the Eligibility criteria
aforementioned adverse effects. However, they are Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared
still not efficacious in treating rhinosinusitis, as they antihistamines with either placebo or no treatment
are highly specific to histamine receptors, and the in treating all subtypes of rhinosinusitis (acute

Accepted for publication 31 July 2016

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Purdue University Libraries, on 15 Sep 2017 at 01:10:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221511700192X
 2 K SERESIRIKACHORN, L KHATTIYAWITTAYAKUN, W CHITSUTHIPAKORN et al.

rhinosinusitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis with and

Number of days with fewer

symptoms; polyp size
without polyps) were included. The outcomes mea-

Outcome measure
sured included patient cure rate (for acute rhinosinusi-
tis), patient-reported outcome, endoscopy, radiography

Symptom score
and adverse events. Trials using any co-interventions
were included if the co-interventions were equally
applied in both groups.

Information sources and search strategy

(months)
duration
Electronic literature searches for RCTs were conducted

Study

1
3
systematically, using Medline and Embase. The last
date of the search was 10 September 2015.
Combinations of the following Medical Subject

Comparator

Placebo
Placebo
Headings terms and keywords were used: antihista-
mines; histamines H1 antagonist; chlorpheniramine;
diphenhydramine; promethazine; triprolidine; hydro-
xyzine; cetirizine; loratadine; desloratadine; fexofena-

intervention
dine; levocetirizine; and rhinosinusitis. References of

None
None
Co-
included studies and additional sources were searched
to identify any missing published or unpublished trials.

Study selection and data synthesis

Loratadine 10 mg once daily

Cetirizine 20 mg once daily
CHARACTERISTICS OF INCLUDED STUDIES
Two authors (K Seresirikachorn and W Chitsuthipa-
korn) independently performed trial selection, and

Antihistamine
two authors (K Seresirikachorn and L Khattiyawittaya-
kun) independently extracted details of the included
studies. The quality of included studies was assessed
by evaluating the risk of bias, as guided by the
TABLE I

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of

Interventions.6 Data were pooled for meta-analysis.
Risk ratios and 95 per cent confidence intervals (CIs)
patients (n (%))
Allergic rhinitis

16 (35.6)
were used for dichotomous data. Mean differences
139 (100)

and 95 per cent CIs were used for continuous data. A

fixed-effect method was used. Statistical assessments
were performed using Review Manager (‘RevMan’)
software, version 5.1.6.7
patients

139
45
All

(n)

Results
Study selection
(years)

15–65
18–68
range
Age

A total of 305 references were identified and retrieved

from electronic searches. One more record was identi-
fied from the references of these studies. Of those,
Chronic rhinosinusitis
Acute rhinosinusitis

297 were excluded in first-level screening (of the title

and abstract) as they were irrelevant. Seven studies
Subject

with polyps

were removed after full-text screening. In the end,

two studies were included.8,9 Characteristics of the
included studies are shown in Table I. A flow chart
of study retrieval and selection is presented in
RCT = randomised controlled trial

Figure 1. Standard deviations were not reported and

design
Study

could not be imputed in one study.9 The corresponding

RCT
RCT

author was contacted for raw data, but these data were
not obtained.
Braun et al.8 (1997)
Haye et al.9 (1998)

Participants
Study (year)

There were a total of 184 participants, of which 52.2

per cent were men. The mean age of patients was
36.9 years. No literature on paediatric patients or
patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Purdue University Libraries, on 15 Sep 2017 at 01:10:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221511700192X
 ANTIHISTAMINES FOR RHINOSINUSITIS 3

FIG. 1
Flow diagram of study selection.

was found. One study included patients with acute rhi- antihistamines, as an adjunct treatment, significantly
nosinusitis,8 while the other investigated patients with decreased nasal obstruction (mean difference = −0.58;
chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps.9 Concomitant aller- 95 per cent CI = −0.85 to −0.31, p < 0.01), but did
gic rhinitis was part of the inclusion criteria in one not reduce total symptom scores (mean difference =
study, as confirmed by patient history, a positive skin −1.25; 95 per cent CI = −2.77 to 0.27, p = 0.11), or
prick test result and serum-specific immunoglobulin rhinorrhoea symptoms (mean difference = −0.06; 95
E antibodies,8 while allergic rhinitis patients (35.6 per cent CI = −0.37 to 0.25, p = 0.71). Cure rate was
per cent) were a minor population in the other study.9 not assessed.
Sensitivity analysis was performed by analysing data
Antihistamines for acute rhinosinusitis at day 14 in order to confirm these findings. Similar
In one of the included studies, by Braun and collea- results were revealed. At day 14, antihistamines, as
gues, 139 allergic rhinitis patients with acute rhinosinu- an adjunct treatment, significantly decreased nasal
sitis were randomised to receive either 10 mg of obstruction (mean difference = −0.34; 95 per cent
loratadine or placebo for 28 days.8 Both groups were CI = −0.64 to −0.04, p = 0.02), but did not reduce
given the following co-interventions: 14 days of anti- total symptom scores (mean difference = −0.26; 95
biotics and 10 days of oral corticosteroids. At day 28, per cent CI = −3.11 to 0.59, p = 0.18) or rhinorrhoea

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Purdue University Libraries, on 15 Sep 2017 at 01:10:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221511700192X
 4 K SERESIRIKACHORN, L KHATTIYAWITTAYAKUN, W CHITSUTHIPAKORN et al.

symptoms (mean difference = −0.12; 95 per cent Antihistamines for paediatric rhinosinusitis
CI = −0.39 to 0.15, p = 0.39). There was no study.

Antihistamines for chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps Intranasal antihistamines for rhinosinusitis
In the other included study, by Haye and colleagues,9 There was no study.
45 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps
were randomised to receive either 20 mg of cetirizine Adverse events
or placebo for 3 months. The primary outcome was When data were pooled to assess somnolence, there
the number of days with fewer than one symptom, was no difference between patients given antihista-
which did not align with the aim of this review. The mines versus placebo (risk ratio = 0.68; 95 per cent
authors reported that cetirizine effectively reduced CI = 0.14 to 3.29, p = 0.64). There was no difference
nasal obstruction, nasal sneezing and rhinorrhoea;9 between antihistamines and placebo in terms of any
however, total and individual symptom scores were adverse event (risk ratio = 0.96; 95 per cent CI =
not given. Nasal endoscopy findings were also 0.61 to 1.51, p = 0.85). The adverse events of using
assessed. There were no improvements in terms of first-generation antihistamines in treating rhinosinusitis
the number and size of polyps in either the antihista- were not investigated.
mine group or placebo group, and there was no differ-
ence between the groups.9 As no standard deviations Risk of bias
were reported, the data could not be analysed. One of the two included studies had a low risk of bias
in terms of random sequence generation.9 Both studies
had an unclear risk of bias regarding allocation con-
Antihistamines for chronic rhinosinusitis
cealment. One included study had a low risk of bias
without polyps
in terms of the blinding of outcome assessment.9
There was no study. Both studies had a low risk of bias regarding incom-
plete outcome data and selective reporting (Figure 2).
First-generation antihistamines for rhinosinusitis In general, the two included studies had selection and
detection biases, but had a low risk of attrition and
There was no study.
reporting biases (Figure 3).

Antihistamines for rhinosinusitis with and Discussion

without allergy The antihistamines in this study improved nasal
Although beneficial effects of loratadine were shown in obstruction for allergic rhinitis patients with acute rhi-
allergic rhinitis patients with acute rhinosinusitis in one nosinusitis. Beneficial effects of antihistamines on
study, by Braun and colleagues,8 the beneficial effects nasal obstruction have been reported in a meta-analysis
of antihistamines for patients without allergy were not of patients with persistent allergic rhinitis.10 When
investigated. The study by Haye and colleagues had a interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-8 were measured by immuno-
mixed population, and 35.6 per cent of the participants assay on fluids recovered from nasal lavage, anti-
had allergic rhinitis.9 However, data for patients with inflammatory effects of second-generation antihista-
allergies and those without were not reported separ- mines were shown, decreasing cytokine levels and
ately, and thus these data could not be used for statis- reducing leucocyte infiltration.11 Jang and colleagues
tical analysis. investigated the effects of levocetirizine on human

FIG. 2
Risk of bias graph: each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Purdue University Libraries, on 15 Sep 2017 at 01:10:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221511700192X
 ANTIHISTAMINES FOR RHINOSINUSITIS 5

included. One previously published systematic review,

by Shaikh and Wald, aimed to assess the effectiveness
of antihistamines, decongestants and nasal irrigation
for treating paediatric rhinosinusitis.14 They reported
that no trial met the inclusion criteria. Shaikh and
Wald excluded the study by McCormick and collea-
gues13 because their diagnostic criteria of positive
radiographs with a minimum symptom duration of 7
days was inadequate, as radiographs may be positive
in children with common cold.
Another systematic review, by De Sutter and collea-
gues, assessed the effectiveness of antihistamines for
treating common cold.15 They reported a short-term
clinical improvement during the first 2 days of treat-
ment. Overall, symptoms had not improved after 3
days. These findings are similar to those of the
present systematic review, which found no overall
symptom improvement associated with the use of
antihistamines for treating rhinosinusitis.
Clinically, the findings of this systematic review
suggest that antihistamines may be beneficial to
allergic rhinitis patients with acute rhinosinusitis.
Although antihistamines do not improve total nasal
symptoms, they may relieve nasal obstruction. This
meta-analysis is limited by the fact that only two
studies were included. More randomised controlled
trials are required to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-
histamines in the treatment of rhinosinusitis.

FIG. 3
Conclusion
Risk of bias summary: each risk of bias item for each included study.
There were limited numbers of included studies in this
systematic review, and it involved studies with risks of
bias. Limited evidence supports the use of antihista-
rhinovirus infection in primary human nasal epithelial mines for treating patients with acute rhinosinusitis.
cells.12 In that study, the inhibitory effects of levocetir- Second-generation antihistamines may be chosen as
izine on human rhinovirus replication, and on human they have anti-inflammatory effects, thus relieving
rhinovirus induced upregulation of intercellular adhe- nasal obstruction. Allergic rhinitis patients may be
sion molecule 1, IL-6, and IL-8, toll-like receptor 3 the target group, as opposed to a non-allergic subgroup
expression and nuclear factor kappa B activation were or chronic rhinosinusitis patients with and without
revealed. polyps. There is no evidence that antihistamines
First-generation antihistamines may not be effective improve cure rate, total nasal symptom scores or rhinor-
in treating rhinosinusitis. McCormick and colleagues rhoea symptoms. Second-generation antihistamines are
studied the effectiveness of the combination of antihis- safe, with no significant adverse events.
tamines and nasal decongestants in treating acute rhino-
sinusitis in children, and reported similar responses to
treatment when compared to placebo.13 The antihista- References
mine used was brompheniramine. This study was 1 Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J, Bachert C, Alobid I, Baroody F
et al. EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and
excluded because the co-intervention of nasal decon- nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists.
gestant was only given to the study arm. Although Rhinology 2012;50:1–12
nasal decongestant was added to brompheniramine, 2 Wallwork B, Coman W, Mackay-Sim A, Greiff L, Cervin A. A
double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of macrolide
the response did not differ from that of placebo. in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2006;
Thus, first-generation antihistamines are considered 116:189–93
not effective in the treatment of rhinosinusitis.13 3 Van Zele T, Gevaert P, Holtappels G, Beule A, Wormald PJ,
Mayr S et al. Oral steroids and doxycycline: two different
To date, this is the only systematic review assessing approaches to treat nasal polyps. J Allergy Clin Immunol
the effectiveness of antihistamines for treating adult 2010;125:1069–76
rhinosinusitis. Although this present review aimed to 4 Naclerio RM, Proud D, Kagey-Sobotka A, Lichtenstein LM,
Hendley JO, Gwaltney JM Jr. Is histamine responsible for the
include all trials studying both adult and paediatric popu- symptoms of rhinovirus colds? A look at the inflammatory med-
lations, no trial investigating paediatric rhinosinusitis was iators following infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1988;7:218–22

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Purdue University Libraries, on 15 Sep 2017 at 01:10:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221511700192X
 6 K SERESIRIKACHORN, L KHATTIYAWITTAYAKUN, W CHITSUTHIPAKORN et al.

5 Wang DY, Wardani RS, Singh K, Thanaviratananich S, Vicente cytokine expression and viral replication in airway epithelial
G, Xu G et al. A survey on the management of acute rhinosinu- cells. Antivir Res 2009;81:226–33
sitis among Asian physicians. Rhinology 2011;49:264–71 13 McCormick DP, John SD, Swischuk LE, Uchida T. A double-
6 Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic blind, placebo-controlled trial of decongestant-antihistamine
Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). for the treatment of sinusitis in children. Clin Pediatr (Phila)
Copenhagen: Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 1996;35:457–60
7 Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 5.1.6. 14 Shaikh N, Wald ER. Decongestants, antihistamines and nasal
Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration, irrigation for acute sinusitis in children. Cochrane Database
2011 Syst Rev 2014;(10):CD007909
8 Braun JJ, Alabert JP, Michel FB, Quiniou M, Rat C, Cougnard 15 De Sutter AI, Saraswat A, van Driel ML. Antihistamines for
J et al. Adjunct effect of loratadine in the treatment of acute the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(11):
sinusitis in patients with allergic rhinitis. Allergy 1997;52: CD009345
650–5
9 Haye R, Aanesen JP, Burtin B, Donnelly F, Duby C. The effect Address for correspondence:
of cetirizine on symptoms and signs of nasal polyposis. Dr Kornkiat Snidvongs,
J Laryngol Otol 1998;112:1042–6 Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine,
10 Hore I, Georgalas C, Scadding G. Oral antihistamines for the Chulalongkorn University,
symptom of nasal obstruction in persistent allergic rhinitis--a 1873 Rama IV Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Exp
Allergy 2005;35:207–12 Fax: +66 2 252 7787
11 Ciprandi G, Cirillo I, Vizzaccaro A, Tosca MA. Levocetirizine E-mail: [email protected]
improves nasal obstruction and modulates cytokine pattern in
patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a pilot study. Clin Exp
Allergy 2004;34:958–64 Dr K Snidvongs takes responsibility for the integrity of the
12 Jang YJ, Wang JH, Kim JS, Kwon HJ, Yeo NK, Lee BJ. content of the paper
Levocetirizine inhibits rhinovirus-induced ICAM-1 and Competing interests: None declared

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Purdue University Libraries, on 15 Sep 2017 at 01:10:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221511700192X