Systematic review evaluates curcuminoids' efficacy in reducing allergic rhinitis symptoms in humans and animals, indicating potential as a treatment.
Background Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory condition triggered by allergens. Curcuminoids, known for their anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, show potential as alternative treatments for allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of curcuminoids in managing allergic rhinitis symptoms and related biological markers in both animal and human studies. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify eligible animal and human studies. Data extraction included allergic rhinitis symptom scores (rubbing, sneezing, itching, nasal congestion, and runny nose) and related biological markers (i.e., IL-4 and IgE). The risk of bias was assessed using SYRCLE’s tool for animal studies and RoB2 for human studies. Meta-analyses employed a random-effects model and reported standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE approach. Results Seven animal studies ( n = 189) and three human studies ( n = 371) were included in the meta-analysis. Animal studies showed significant reductions in two symptom scores and one related biological marker: rubbing (SMD = − 2.2013, 95% CI − 3.8027 to − 0.5998, p = 0.0071); sneezing (SMD = − 2.3844, 95% CI − 3.6940 to − 1.0747, p = 0.0004); and IL-4 (SMD = − 0.9416, 95% CI − 1.8130 to − 0.0702, p = 0.0342). Symptom scores in humans showed a trend toward reduction, although the change was not statistically significant. Conclusions Curcuminoids showed beneficial effects in animal models of allergic rhinitis, while current human evidence is limited and inconclusive. Further well-designed clinical trials are needed to clarify their therapeutic potential in humans. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42025640405.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Inpan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: