Journal
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY-IN PRACTICE
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 682-+Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.02.006
Keywords
Allergic rhinitis; Oral antihistamine; Intranasal antihistamine; Intranasal corticosteroid; Leukotriene receptor antagonist; Minimal clinically important difference (MCID); Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR); Total nasal symptom score (TNSS)
Categories
Funding
- Meda Pharmaceuticals
Ask authors/readers for more resources
BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution based thresholds. METHODS: Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor-and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine Dintranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold. RESULTS: No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma& Immunology.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available