Content uploaded by Vaidya Prakash
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vaidya Prakash on Oct 09, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review began 09/15/2023
Review ended 10/07/2023
Published 10/08/2023
© Copyright 2023
Prakash et al. This is an open access
article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License CC-
BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Proof of Efficacy Study to Evaluate an Ayurvedic
Formulation in the Treatment of Allergic
Rhinitis: An Open Label Randomized Controlled
Clinical Trial
Vaidya B. Prakash , Yashwant K. Rao , Shikha Prakash , Sneha T. Sati , Ankita Mohapatra , Neha Negi
1. Ayurveda, Vaidya Chandra Prakash Cancer (VCPC) Research Foundation, Rudrapur, IND 2. Pediatrics, Ganesh
Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial (GSVM) Medical College, Kanpur, IND 3. Medicine, Padaav - A Specialty Ayurvedic
Treatment Centre, Rudrapur, IND 4. Clinical Research, Vaidya Chandra Prakash Cancer (VCPC) Research Foundation,
Rudrapur, IND 5. Clinical Research, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial (GSVM) Medical College, Kanpur, IND 6.
Clinical Research, Padaav - A Specialty Ayurvedic Treatment Centre, Rudrapur, IND
Corresponding author: Vaidya B. Prakash, balenduprakash@gmail.com
Abstract
Background: Allergic rhinitis is largely treated by using antihistamines and nasal sprays, either alone or in
combination. However, these measures ease out the symptoms but do not address causative factors, and
have their share of side effects and limitations. An Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation, IMMBO, has been
reported to be effective in treating allergic rhinitis.
Objective: The present study was carried out to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the Ayurvedic
herbo-mineral formulation in comparison with a fixed-dose combination of levocetirizine and montelukast.
Method: This was a randomized, comparative, clinical study carried out on 250 patients at a medical college
in India. The patients were enrolled according to the eligibility criteria of the study and randomized into two
groups, to receive either Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation, IMMBO, or a combination of levocetirizine
and montelukast for 28 days. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and Immunoglobulin E (IgE) were
calculated for evaluation of efficacy parameters.
Result: At the end of therapy both IMMBO and levocetirizine and montelukast combination showed
significant improvement in TNSS in both treated population and per protocol population. The IMMBO group
had a statistically higher reduction in TNSSs compared to the levocetirizine + montelukast group (-5.70 vs. -
3.31; p<0.01). There was a statistically significant difference in the reduction of IgE levels between the
groups (-351.54 vs. -208.79; p<0.05).
Conclusion: The findings of this study establish prima facie evidence about the efficacy and safety of
Ayurvedic formulation. However, the said Ayurvedic formulation needs to be further developed
scientifically.
Categories: Allergy/Immunology, Integrative/Complementary Medicine
Keywords: tnss, montelukast, levocetirizine, immbo, ige, ayurveda, allergic rhinitis
Introduction
Rhinitis is characterized by inflammation of the mucus membrane of the nose marked especially by
rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, itching, and sneezing [1]. Rhinitis has broadly been categorized as allergic,
infectious, non-allergic, and non-infectious rhinitis [2]. Allergic rhinitis is further categorized into seasonal
(intermittent) and perennial (persistent) allergic rhinitis [3]. Seasonal allergic rhinitis (hay fever) has been
briefly described in the Islamic text of the 9th century. During the 15th century various terminologies were
used for rhinitis such as Catarrh coined from the work Katarrhen which means flow down. Subsequently,
European texts described allergic rhinitis in the 16th century. The 19th century witnessed the wide
emergence of hay fever with the industrialization of Westernized countries where it was a common
condition and now both types of rhinitis are global diseases [4].
Ayurveda is an ancient medical system in India that describes many aspects of health; prevention and
treatment of diseases. Charak Samhita has been considered the oldest treatise of Ayurveda, originating from
2000 BC, and written in the Sanskrit language [5]. Charak has mentioned the disease called Pratishyay,
marked by the main symptoms of sneezing and a watery nose. Later on, Sushrut Samhita in the 6th century,
Ashtang Hridaya in the 7-8th century, Madhav Nidan in the 7-8th century, Ashtang Sangraha in the 9-10th
century, Chakradatt in 11th century, Bhav Prakash in 16th century and Bhaishajya Ratnawali in 18th century
has described Pratishyay as an independent disorder [6-11]. Ayurvedic literature has emphasized treating
1 2 3 4 5
6
Open Access Original
Article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46663
How to cite this article
Prakash V B, Rao Y K, Prakash S, et al. (Oc tober 08, 2023) Proof of Efficacy Study to Evaluate an Ayurvedic Formulation in the Treatment of
Allergic Rhinitis: An Open Label Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Cureus 15(10): e46663. DOI 10.7759/cureus.46663
Pratishyay by eliminating the causative factors and adopting appropriate lifestyle and medicine otherwise it
converts into Dusht Pratishaya [12]. Its symptoms are similar to those of persistent allergic
rhinitis/sinusitis/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Allergic rhinitis is managed by avoidance of allergies, maintaining hygienic conditions, and consuming
antihistamines in conventional medicine [13]. Corticosteroids are also used mostly in nasal sprays to bring
instant relief [14]. As per modern medicines, combining levocetirizine with montelukast treats allergies
effectively. Levocetirizine is an antiallergen that blocks histamine, relieving runny nose, watery eyes, and
sneezing, and montelukast obstructs leukotrienes, reducing inflammation in the airways and nose, further
alleviating allergy symptoms [15].
Ayurveda is widely practiced in India alongside Western medicine and other alternative systems of medicine.
Registered Ayurvedic practitioners can use and formulate Ayurvedic remedies in their clinical practice
without needing a drug manufacturing license [16]. In 1997, a North India-based Ayurvedic clinic discovered
the therapeutic effect of a herbo-mineral formulation (HMF) in treating persistent allergic rhinitis. HMF
effectively relieves acute and persistent allergic rhinitis in various Indian Ayurvedic clinics. IMMBO is a
judicious combination of eighteen herbs (Cedrus deodara, Curcuma longa, Cypus rotundus, Emblica officinalis,
Emblica ribes, Holarrhena antidysentrica, Picrorrhiza kurroa, Berberis aristata, Piper longum, Piper longum
(Root), Piper nigrum, Plumbago zeylanica, Saussurea lappa, Terminallia belerica, Terminallia chebula, Zingiber
officinalis, Boerhavia diffusa, Operculina terpathum) and Mandoor Bhasma. Mandoor is an iron ore that gets
converted into a complex mineral form with mainly fayalite and hematite.
This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a novel therapeutic intervention
IMMBO in comparison with a conventional combination of levocetirizine and montelukast in patients
diagnosed with allergic rhinitis as per standard Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2019
diagnostic criteria [17].
Materials And Methods
Study design
This was a prospective, randomized, active-controlled, comparative, parallel-group clinical study conducted
in a tertiary care teaching hospital (GSVM Medical College, Kanpur) in India. The study was planned for 250
patients with allergic rhinitis. Patients satisfying the eligibility criteria were enrolled and randomized in a
1:1 ratio to receive IMMBO (60 mg/kg/day) or a fixed-dose combination of levocetirizine 2.5 mg +
montelukast 4 mg for a treatment period of 28 days.
Ethics
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. It was
approved by the Institutional and Ethical Clearance Board of GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, India
(Approval no./ID: EC/BMHR/2022/20). The study was also registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India
(CTRI registration No. REF/2022/06/055573). All patients provided their written informed consent prior to
participation in the study.
Patient eligibility criteria
Male and female patients aged between 4 and 60 years who were satisfying the ARIA 2019 diagnostic criteria
were enrolled in the study. To be eligible for the study, the patient had to have a history of allergic rhinitis
and active symptoms of the disease during enrollment. Patients were required to have any of the following
two symptoms of allergic rhinitis, that is sneezing, itchy nose and/or palate, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea,
conjunctival hyperemia, and eye-watering and should have had a total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of ≥ 2.
TNSS is the sum of scores for nasal congestion, sneezing, nasal itching, and rhinorrhea at each time point. It
is calculated using a four-point scale ranging from 0-3 (0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms that can be
easily tolerated, 2 = awareness of symptoms that are bothersome but manageable, and 3 = severe symptoms
that are difficult to tolerate and interfere with daily activities). TNSS is calculated by adding the score for
each of the symptoms, where a maximum score can be 12. Patients were also required to have serum
Immunoglobin E (IgE) levels>100 IU/mL.
Patients with a history of acute or chronic sinusitis within 30 days of the screening visit were excluded from
the study. Individuals with a history of rhinitis medicamentosa, non-allergic rhinitis, major structural nasal
blockage, nasal polyps, or any other clinically significant nasal anomaly were also excluded from the study.
Patients with upper respiratory tract infections including cold and systemic infections within 3 weeks or
history of eye surgery or intranasal surgery within 3 months or with severe asthma requiring emergency
room treatment within 1 month or hospitalization within 3 months of baseline visit were also excluded.
Patients having clinically significant impaired hepatic and renal functions were excluded from the study.
Patients with abnormal ECG (conduction delay, abnormal QTc interval) were also excluded. Patients with a
history of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, respiratory, hematological, endocrine, or neurological disorders
as well as those receiving immunotherapy within the previous six months were excluded. Patients with
allergies to any of the medicines or any of the ingredients of the formulation were excluded from the study.
2023 Prakash et al. Cureus 15(10): e46663. DOI 10.7759/cureus.46663 2 of 9
Patients already receiving medications for allergic rhinitis/ conjunctivitis such as antihistaminic, inhaled,
oral, parenteral, nasal, and ophthalmic corticosteroids, cromolyn sodium, nedocromil or inhaled
anticholinergics, long-acting inhaled β-agonists, Theophylline, and Leukotriene modifiers, decongestants,
and anti-inflammatory drugs were excluded from the study.
Study interventions
Eligible patients of allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive either HMF IMMBO oral powder at a dose of
60 mg/kg/day in three divided doses or a fixed-dose combination of levocetirizine 2.5 mg and montelukast 4
mg once daily for 28 days. Oral suspension of levocetirizine + montelukast was preferred in children of 4 to
11 years of age. Patients above 12 years received tablets of levocetirizine and montelukast combination. The
subjects were randomized to study treatments in a 1:1 ratio. During the treatment, patients visited the clinic
on day 14 and day 28 (end of the study visit).
Study procedure
During the study, patients underwent screening at baseline, day 14, and end-of-therapy visits (day 28).
During the screening visit patient’s demography, physical examination, vital signs, past medical history,
family history of allergic rhinitis, current signs and symptoms of the disease, details of concurrent
medications, and lab investigations were recorded to evaluate the eligibility of the patients as per the
inclusion-exclusion criteria. Blood samples were also collected during the baseline visit to estimate IgE
levels.
TNSS and IgE levels were captured for eligible patients during baseline visits and patients were randomized
to either of the two treatments. On day 14, a follow-up visit for safety assessment and drug dispensing was
performed. On day 28 visit, TNSS and IgE levels were performed to asses efficacy, and laboratory
investigations were performed for safety assessment.
Study endpoints
The study endpoints included analyzing and comparing the changes from baseline in TNSS and IgE levels
between the IMMBO group and the levocetirizine + montelukast group over the 4-week treatment period.
Safety assessment was based on adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters. An adverse event was
defined as any untoward medical occurrence including an abnormal laboratory finding occurring in trial
subjects that may or may not be related to the study treatment. Patients were encouraged to report adverse
events spontaneously or respond to a general non-directed questionnaire.
Statistics
A sample size of 90 patients in each group was estimated to give more than 85% power to detect a difference
of 1.5 in mean change from baseline to Week 4 in TNSS between IMMBO and levocetirizine + montelukast
group with a significance level of 0.05 and standard deviation (SD) of 3.3. After allowing 20% dropouts, 112
patients were required in each treatment group. Statistical analysis was performed on all randomized
patients who completed 4 weeks of treatment without any protocol violation. Descriptive statistics were
used to compare the demographic and baseline disease characteristics. Data was presented in terms of mean
± SD, median, percentiles, or range for continuous variables and percentage for categorical variables. All the
patients were compared at baseline for homogeneity using a two-sample t-test or Kruskal-Walli’s test for
continuous variables and the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables.
The primary efficacy parameter was the mean change in TNSS at Week 4 from baseline and the difference
between the two groups was assessed using a two-sample t-test and within treatment group comparisons
were assessed using paired t-test. The secondary efficacy parameter was the mean change in IgE levels at
Week 4 from baseline and the difference between the two groups was assessed using a two-sample t-test and
within treatment group comparisons were assessed using a paired t-test. Change in ARIA symptoms from
baseline to Week 4 was assessed using the Chi-square test for between-group comparison and within-
treatment group comparisons were assessed using McNemar’s test.
Safety parameters were the incidence of adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters from the
baseline. A comparison of the incidence of adverse events was to be done using the Chi-square test or
Fisher’s exact test. Changes in laboratory parameters from baseline to week 4 were assessed using a two-
sample t-test and within treatment group comparisons were assessed using a paired t-test. The level of
significance was set at 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
Results
This study screened 250 patients with allergic rhinitis from July 22 to December 22. Of these, 224 subjects
who met the inclusion-exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Twelve subjects withdrew consent prior
to enrolment, 11 subjects did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, and 3 subjects were lost to follow-up between
2023 Prakash et al. Cureus 15(10): e46663. DOI 10.7759/cureus.46663 3 of 9
screening visit and baseline visit.
Of these 224 subjects, 114 were randomized to receive IMMBO, and 110 received montelukast +
levocetirizine fixed-dose combination. All the subjects in both groups completed the 28-day treatment
period. There were 3 protocol violations in the IMMBO group and 2 protocol violations in the montelukast +
levocetirizine group (Figure 1). All 224 patients who completed the 28-day treatment period were included in
the efficacy and safety analysis. Efficacy analysis was also performed on a per protocol population of 219
patients (that excludes protocol violations in both the study groups).
FIGURE 1: Disposition of study participants
*Indicates per protocol population which comprised all enrolled subjects who completed the study without any
protocol violations; TNSS: total nasal symptom score; IMMBO: Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation
Both the treatment groups were well matched with respect to demography and baseline disease
characteristics except for the proportion of patients having rhinorrhea and nasal congestion that was more
in the IMMBO group. The pediatric population was also well distributed in both treatment groups (Table 1).
2023 Prakash et al. Cureus 15(10): e46663. DOI 10.7759/cureus.46663 4 of 9
IMMBO group (n = 114) Montelukast + Levocetirizine group (n = 110) P value
Age, categorical#
<12 years 10 (8.77%) 7(6.36%)
0.50
≥12 years 104 (91.23%) 103 (93.46%)
Age, continuous (unit: years) mean ± SD 25.31± 10.21 26.82 ± 9.80 0.26
Gender#
Female 42 (36.84%) 39 (35.45%)
0.83
Male 72 (63.15%) 71 (64.54%)
Past history of allergic rhinitis (in years), Mean ± SD* 1.00 ± 3.60 1.21 ± 3.97 0.68
ARIA Symptoms#
Sneezing 89 (78.07%) 91 (82.73%) 0.38
Nasal itching 80 (70.18%) 80 (72.73%) 0.67
Nasal congestion 62 (54.39%) 31 (28.18%) <0.01
Rhinorrhea 50 (43.86%) 12 (10.91%) <0.01
Conjunctival hyperemia 20 (17.54%) 17 (15.45%) 0.67
Watering of eyes 15 (1 3.16%) 13 (11.82%) 0.76
TABLE 1: Baseline measures
*Represent values in mean ± SD and two-sample t-test used for the comparison; # represent values in n (%) and Chi-square test used for the comparison;
ARIA: Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma 2019; IMMBO: Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation
At the end of 28 days of therapy, both IMMBO and montelukast + levocetirizine combination showed
significant improvement in TNSS score in both all treated population and per protocol population.
Reduction in TNSS score was significantly greater in IMMBO-treated patients as compared to the
montelukast + levocetirizine combination (Table 2). Complete resolution of nasal symptoms was reported in
92.98% of patients treated with IMMBO vs. 82.73% of patients who received montelukast + levocetirizine
combination in all treated patients while nasal symptoms were resolved completely in 90.35% IMMBO
treated patients vs. 75.45% patients treated with levocetirizine + montelukast group in per protocol patients.
This difference was statistically significant favoring IMMBO in both all treated population and per protocol
population (Table 2).
Outcome IMMBO (n = 114) Montelukast + Levocetirizine (n = 110) P value*
TNSS
Pre 6 (1 to 12) 3 (1 to 10) < .0001>
Post 0 (0 to 1) 0 (0 to 2) 0.0030
Change -5 (-12 to 0) -3 (-10 to -1) < .0001>
P value# < .0001> < .0001>
TABLE 2: Change in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) – all treated patients
Data is presented as median and range (m in to max); P value* two-sample median test is used; P value# paired non-parametric test is used; IMMBO:
Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation
Subgroup analysis
2023 Prakash et al. Cureus 15(10): e46663. DOI 10.7759/cureus.46663 5 of 9
Subgroup analysis of TNSS in the pediatric population (age 4 to 12 years) also reported a significant fall in
TNSS in both treatment groups. A similar trend was also observed in patients with age more than 12 years
(Table 3).
Age<12 Age≥12
Outcome IMMBO (n =10) Montelukast + levocetirizine (n =7 ) P value* IMMBO (n = 104) Montelukast + levocetirizine (n = 103) P value*
TNSS
Pre 3 (2 to 9) 3 (2 to 7) 0.9638 6 (1 to 12) 3 (1 to 10) < .0001>
Post 0 (0 to 1) 0 (0 to 0) 0.2217 0 (0 to 1) 0 (0 to 2) 0.0009
Change -3 (-8 to -2) -3 (-7 to -2) 0.9046 -6 (-12 to 0) -3 (-10 to -1) < .0001>
P value# 0.002 0 0.0156 < .0001> < .0001>
TABLE 3: Change in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) – agewise stratification
Data is presented as median and range (m in to max); P value* two-sample median test is used; P value# paired non-parametric test is used; IMMBO:
Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation
At the end of 28 days of therapy, both IMMBO and montelukast + levocetirizine combination showed
significant improvement in IgE levels in both all treated population and per protocol population
(Table 4). The reduction in IgE levels favors IMMBO. This reduction in IgE levels was similar irrespective of
the age group of the study population (Table 5).
Outcome IMMBO (n = 114) Montelukast + Levocetirizine (n = 110) P value*
IgE
Pre 670 (56 to 3200) 554 (189 to 2158) 0.1600
Post 321 (102 to 1400) 321 (102 to 1400) 1.0000
Change -226.750 (-2876 to 1244.8) -195.800 (-1734.8 to 396.2) 0.6410
P value# <0.0001 <0.0001
TABLE 4: Change in Immunoglobin E (IgE) – all treated patients
Data is presented as median and range (m in to max); P value* two-sample median test is used; P value# paired non-parametric test is used; IMMBO:
Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation
2023 Prakash et al. Cureus 15(10): e46663. DOI 10.7759/cureus.46663 6 of 9
Age<12 Age≥12
Outcome IMMBO (n =10) Montelukast + levocetirizine (n = 7) P value* IMMBO (n = 104) Montelukast + levocetirizin e (n = 103) P value*
IgE
Pre 822 (124 to 1817) 566.2 (321 to 1012) 0.2151 662 (56 to 3200) 551 (189 to 2158) 0.4042
Post 276.6 (222 to 806) 275 (222 to 806) 0.7782 321.9 (102 to 1400) 321 (102 to 1400) 0.9445
Change -499.950 (-1564.9 to 251)) -206.000 (-415.7 to -99) 0.4990 -205.350 (-2876 to 1244.8) -194.900 (-1734.8 to 396.2) 0.7810
P value# 0.3438 0.0156 0.0042 < .0001>
TABLE 5: Change in Immunoglobin E (IgE) – agewise stratification
Data is presented as median and range (m in to max); P value* two-sample median test is used; P value# paired non-parametric test is used; IMMBO:
Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation
Both the study treatments were well tolerated by the patients. No treatment-emergent adverse events were
reported during the study. End of the study laboratory investigation revealed no clinically significant
changes.
Discussion
Allergic rhinitis is the most common type of rhinitis. It is an inflammation of the nasal membrane that is
characterized by sneezing, nasal congestion, nasal itching, and rhinorrhoea in any combination. Peak
occurrence of allergic rhinitis is reported in the age group of 20-40 years [18]. In the Indian scenario,
approximately 20 to 30 percent population suffers from allergic rhinitis, and out of those 15 percent develop
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [19]. The highest prevalence of allergic rhinitis is
reported in southern regions of India [20]. Allergic rhinitis imposes an economic burden of approximately
3.4 billion in India. Besides the economic impact, it also affects individuals’ social performances, sleep,
memory, emotion, and psychology, degrading their quality of life [21].
A combination of levocetirizine and montelukast is effective in treating allergic rhinitis symptoms like
congestion, sneezing, itching, and runny nose and provides relief to patients by reducing TNSS and IgE
levels. However, they do not generally address recurrences and their prolonged use can cause side effects
like drowsiness, dry mouth, fatigue, headaches, gastrointestinal issues, and mood changes [22]. Intranasal
corticosteroids also have limitations associated with side effects in bringing relief to allergic rhinitis patients
[23]. Newer approaches are needed to treat allergic rhinitis by targeting the underlying immune response for
long-term symptom relief with minimal side effects. Current treatments provide relief for some patients but
investigating newer therapies that provide a radical cure is important [24].
An Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation, IMMBO, was found to be effective in treating patients of allergic
rhinitis in a North India-based clinic. Later, the efficacy of IMMBO in patients with allergic rhinitis was
reported in non-randomized observational clinical studies conducted by dispensing Ayurvedic physicians
across India. The present study was designed to assess its efficacy in a randomized controlled clinical set-up.
The results of the study interestingly showed that the 28-day-long treatment using IMMBO brought
outcomes comparable to the combination of levocetirizine and montelukast by reducing IgE levels and TNSS
score, without any grade II toxicity or reported adverse effects.
IMMBO is developed using Mandoor Bhasma with eighteen herbs, following the principles of Ayurveda.
There is no information available on its mode of action as yet. This study is the first of its type where
traditional Ayurvedic formulation was evaluated in comparison with well-established conventional
treatment of allergic rhinitis. The study protocol was executed under the guidance of a subject expert at a
premier medical institute in India and the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis was done based on internationally
recognized ARIA criteria. The results of the study are encouraging. While both treatments brought
significant improvement, IMMBO was significantly better in reducing TNSS and IgE levels (p<0.05).
Subgroup analysis and subjects aged below 12 years also revealed that there was a significant fall in TNSS
and IgE levels from baseline. This proves that IMMBO is also effective in the pediatric population. There
were no serious side effects reported during the study and both treatments were well tolerated.
The result of the present study established prima facie evidence of the clinical efficacy of IMMBO in treating
patients with allergic rhinitis. The result is significant in all aspects. IMMBO could be considered a
meritorious formulation for scientific exploration in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.
2023 Prakash et al. Cureus 15(10): e46663. DOI 10.7759/cureus.46663 7 of 9
Conclusions
This study is unique as it compares the efficacy and tolerability of an Ayurvedic herbo-mineral formulation,
IMMBO to well-established allopathic medications for treating allergic rhinitis. The results indicate that the
herbo-mineral formulation has the potential to treat allergic rhinitis. IMMBO has promising qualities that
warrant further scientific explorations.
Additional Information
Author Contributions
All authors have reviewed the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the
work.
Concept and design: Vaidya B. Prakash, Yashwant K. Rao, Shikha Prakash
Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Vaidya B. Prakash, Yashwant K.
Rao, Shikha Prakash, Ankita Mohapatra
Supervision: Vaidya B. Prakash, Yashwant K. Rao
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Sneha T. Sati, Ankita Mohapatra, Neha Negi
Drafting of the manuscript: Sneha T. Sati, Neha Negi
Disclosures
Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Ethics Committee for
Biomedical Health and Research, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur issued approval EC/BMHR/2022/20. The
study protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional ethical committee prior to starting the study.
The study was also registered under the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI; Ref. No.
REF/2022/06/055573). Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal
subjects or tissue. Conf licts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors
declare the following: Payment/services info: The study was sponsored by VCPC Research Foundation,
Uttarakhand, India. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial
relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an
interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other
relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
References
1. Kakli HA, Riley TD: Allergic rhinitis. Prim Care. 2016, 43:465-75. 10.1016/j.pop.2016.04.009
2. Liva GA, Karatzanis AD, Prokopakis EP: Review of rhinitis: classification, types, pathophysiology . J Clin
Med. 2021, 10:3183. 10.3390/jcm10143183
3. Rhinitis: synopsis. (2023). Accessed: August 9, 2023: https://www.worldallergy.org/education-and-
programs/education/allergic-disease-resource-center/professionals/rhinitis....
4. Bousquet J, Khaltaev N, Cruz AA, et al.: Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2008 update (in
collaboration with the World Health Organization, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen). Allergy. 2008, 63 Suppl 86:8-
160. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01620.x
5. Tripathi B: Chikitsa sthan. Charak Samhita of Agnivesa. Chaukhamba Surbharti Prakashan, Varanasi, India;
2022.
6. Shastri A: Uttar tantra. Sushrut Samhita. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi, India; 2014.
7. Gupta A: Uttar tantra. Ashtanga Hridaya by Vagbhatta. Chaukhamba Prakashan, Varanasi, India; 2016.
8. Upadhayaya Y, Shastri S: Madhukosh hridya. Madhav Nidaan by Sri Madavakara. Chaukhamba Prakashan,
Varanasi, India; 2022.
9. Kamat SD: Chikitsa prakaran. Bhava Prakash by Sri Bhamisara. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Bhavan, Varanasi,
India; 2018.
10. Tripathi I: Vaidhprabha teeka. Chakradatt by Shri Chakrapani Dutta. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Bhavan,
Varanasi, India; 2019.
11. Shastri AD: Vidhotini teeka. Bhaishajya Ratnawali by Shri Govind Das. Chaukhamba Prakashan, Varanasi,
India; 2014.
12. Patel A, Vaghela P: A systemic review of dushta pratishyaya w.s.r to chronic sinusitis . World J Pharm Res.
2018, 7:285-292.
13. Kawauchi H, Yanai K, Wang DY, Itahashi K, Okubo K: Antihistamines for allergic rhinitis treatment from
the viewpoint of nonsedative properties. Int J Mol Sci. 2019, 20:213. 10.3390/ijms20010213
14. Corren J: Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: How do different agents compare? . J Allergy Clin
Immunol. 1999, 104:144-149. 10.1016/s0091-6749(99)70310-6
15. May BC, Gallivan KH: Levocetirizine and montelukast in the COVID-19 treatment paradigm . Int
Immunopharmacol. 2022, 103:108412. 10.1016/j.intimp.2021.108412
16. Provisions related to Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani (ASU) drugs. (2003). Accessed: August 9, 2023:
https://corpbiz.io/learning/provisions-to-ayurvedic-siddha-and-unani-asu-
2023 Prakash et al. Cureus 15(10): e46663. DOI 10.7759/cureus.46663 8 of 9
drugs/#:~:text=The%20person%20must%20not%20m....
17. Klimek L, Bachert C, Pfaar O, et al.: ARIA guideline 2019: treatment of allergic rhinitis in the German health
system. Allergol Select. 2019, 3:22-50. 10.5414/ALX02120E
18. Varshney J, Varshney H: Allergic rhinitis: an overview . Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015, 67:143-9.
10.1007/s12070-015-0828-5
19. Jaggi V, Dalal A, Ramesh BR, et al.: Coexistence of allergic rhinitis and asthma in Indian patients: the
CARAS survey. Lung India. 2019, 36:411-6. 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_491_18
20. John J, Savery N, Velayutham P, Mathan K, Davis P: Evaluation of a possible association between severity of
allergic rhinitis and the level of depression in patients in a tertiary care hospital in South India: a cross-
sectional study. Cureus. 2023, 15:e39809. 10.7759/cureus.39809
21. Brozek JL, Bousquet J, Baena-Cagnani CE, et al.: Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)
guidelines: 2010 revision. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010, 126:466-76. 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.06.047
22. Levocetirizine + montelukast. (2023). Accessed: September 13, 2023:
https://medicaldialogues.in/generics/levocetirizine-montelukast-2723632.
23. Rollema C, van Roon EN, Ekhart C, van Hunsel FP, de Vries TW: Adverse drug reactions of intranasal
corticosteroids in the Netherlands: an analysis from the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center. Drugs Real
World Outcomes. 2022, 9:321-31. 10.1007/s40801-022-00301-x
24. Dykewicz MS, Wallace DV, Baroody F, et al.: Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: an evidence-based
focused 2017 guideline update . Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017, 119:489-511.e41.
10.1016/j.anai.2017.08.012
2023 Prakash et al. Cureus 15(10): e46663. DOI 10.7759/cureus.46663 9 of 9
