MedeliX
Start asking

Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)‐EAACI Guidelines—2024–2025 Revision: Part I—Guidelines on Intranasal Treatments

ARIA/EAACI · 2025 · Europe

Source and licence

Authors
Bernardo Sousa‐Pinto, Jean Bousquet, Rafael José Vieira et al.
Title
Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)‐EAACI Guidelines—2024–2025 Revision: Part I—Guidelines on Intranasal Treatments
Journal
Allergy, 2025
DOI
10.1111/all.70131
Licence
CC BY 4.0
Changes
Verbatim excerpts; formatting adapted

Full text retrieved 2026-10-27 from Europe PMC · PMC13040648

Licence statement of the original publication

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This page reproduces excerpts of the original publication; the original is authoritative. It has not been reviewed by a physician, does not state a recommendation of Medelix and does not replace medical advice. The guideline may have been updated since.

Open the original publication →Full text on Europe PMC

Recommendations

Verbatim, with grade of recommendation or strength of consensus where given.

Should a combination of an INAH+INCS vs. no treatment be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR in whom monotherapy is unlikely to lead to significant improvement in symptoms, we recommend using INAH+INCS over no treatmentstrong recommendation|moderate CoE for seasonal AR and very low CoE for perennial AR

Should any specific INCS vs. other INCS be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR, we suggest using specific INCS (in particular, fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate) over others namely beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, mometasone and triamcinoloneconditional recommendation|low‐very low CoE

Should any specific combination of an INAH+INCS vs. other combination of an INAH+INCS be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR, we suggest using azelastine‐fluticasone over olopatadine‐mometasoneconditional recommendation|moderate CoE

Should a combination of an INCS and an intranasal decongestant vs. an INCS alone be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR, we suggest against using a combination of an INCS and an intranasal decongestant over an INCS aloneconditional recommendation|very low CoE

Should an INAH vs. no treatment be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR, we recommend using INAH over no treatmentstrong recommendation|moderate CoE

Should an intranasal decongestant vs. no treatment be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In adolescents and adults with AR, we suggest against using intranasal decongestants in the long term (longer than 5 days) over no treatmentconditional recommendation|very low CoE

Should a combination of an INAH+INCS vs. an INCS alone be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR, we suggest using a combination of an INAH+INCS over an INCS aloneconditional recommendation|moderate CoE for seasonal AR and very low CoE for perennial AR

Should an INCS vs. no treatment be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR, we recommend using INCS over no treatmentstrong recommendation|moderate CoE

Should an INCS vs. an INAH be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR, we suggest using INCS over INAHconditional recommendation|moderate CoE

Should a combination of an INAH+INCS vs. an INAH alone be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR, we suggest using a combination of an INAH+INCS over an INAH aloneconditional recommendation|moderate CoE for seasonal AR and very low CoE for perennial AR

Should an INAH vs. an intranasal chromone be used for the treatment of AR?

  • In patients with AR, we suggest using INAH over intranasal chromonesconditional recommendation|very low CoE

Should a Combination of an Intranasal H1‐Antihistamine and an Intranasal Corticosteroid vs. no Treatment Be Used for the Treatment of AR?

  • Considerations in children and adolescents: The recommendation is applicable to children and adolescents, with available studies having assessed children aged as low as 4 years old.
  • Implementation considerations: None specific.

Should Any Specific Intranasal Corticosteroid vs. Another Intranasal Corticosteroid Be Used for the Treatment of AR?

  • RecommendationIn adult patients with AR, we suggest using specific INCS (in particular, fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate) over others (namely, beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, mometasone and triamcinolone).Conditional recommendation based on very low or low certainty of evidence for most comparisons
  • Considerations in children and adolescents: In children and adolescents, evidence was not sufficient to support recommending a specific INCS (insufficient number of primary studies). Daily doses in children aged < 12 years old may be lower (e.g., half) of those used in adults.
  • Implementation considerations: In low‐ and middle‐income countries, other specific INCS may be preferred based on local availability and affordability (e.g., budesonide is on the WHO List of Essential Medicines). From a planetary health perspective, locally produced generics may be preferrable.

Brief Justification

  • Efficacy and safety: ○ A network meta‐analysis suggested that, in seasonal AR, fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate were the INCS displaying the highest probability of being more effective in improving nasal symptoms. In perennial AR, budesonide was the INCS displaying the highest probability of being the most effective in improving nasal symptoms, but it was only assessed by one trial. ○ In seasonal AR, beclomethasone and fluticasone furoate were the INCS having the highest probability of being the most effective in improving ocular symptoms. In perennial AR, fluticasone furoate was the most effective INCS for ocular symptoms. ○ In terms of rhinoconjunctivitis‐related quality of life (RQLQ), fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate were the INCS displaying the highest probability of being the most effective in seasonal AR. In perennial AR, the most effective INCS were fluticasone furoate and beclomethasone. ○ Similar frequencies and patterns of adverse events and serious adverse events were observed with the different INCS based on data from RCTs and pharmacovigilance.
  • A network meta‐analysis suggested that, in seasonal AR, fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate were the INCS displaying the highest probability of being more effective in improving nasal symptoms. In perennial AR, budesonide was the INCS displaying the highest probability of being the most effective in improving nasal symptoms, but it was only assessed by one trial.
  • In seasonal AR, beclomethasone and fluticasone furoate were the INCS having the highest probability of being the most effective in improving ocular symptoms. In perennial AR, fluticasone furoate was the most effective INCS for ocular symptoms.
  • In terms of rhinoconjunctivitis‐related quality of life (RQLQ), fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate were the INCS displaying the highest probability of being the most effective in seasonal AR. In perennial AR, the most effective INCS were fluticasone furoate and beclomethasone.
  • Similar frequencies and patterns of adverse events and serious adverse events were observed with the different INCS based on data from RCTs and pharmacovigilance.
  • Resources required, cost‐effectiveness and equity: A survey of ARIA experts suggested that the least and most expensive INCS vary widely across countries. We did not identify any cost‐effectiveness study comparing INCS, but MASK‐air data suggests that mometasone and budesonide tend to be more frequently cost‐effective interventions compared to other INCS. Budesonide is the only INCS on the WHO List of Essential Medicines.
  • Acceptability and feasibility: MASK‐air data suggest that fluticasone furoate and mometasone are the INCS associated with higher adherence. The different INCS are associated with similar levels of treatment satisfaction. However, fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate seem to be used more often in co‐medication than other individual INCS.
  • Planetary health: No specific evidence was found in terms of comparative impact on planetary health.

Should Any Specific Combination of an Intranasal H1‐Antihistamine and an Intranasal Corticosteroid vs. Another Combination of an Intranasal H1‐Antihistamine and an Intranasal Corticosteroid Be Used for the Treatment of AR?

  • RecommendationIn adult patients with AR, we suggest using azelastine‐fluticasone over olopatadine‐mometasone.Conditional recommendation based on moderate certainty of evidence for seasonal AR
  • Considerations in children and adolescents: In children and adolescents, we suggest either using azelastine‐fluticasone or olopatadine‐mometasone based on the available scarce evidence.
  • Implementation considerations: In patients experiencing bitter taste with azelastine‐fluticasone, olopatadine‐mometasone may be preferred.

Brief Justification

  • Efficacy and safety: ○ A network meta‐analysis suggested that, compared to olopatadine‐mometasone, azelastine‐fluticasone is associated with a 23% probability of resulting in a nontrivial improvement in nasal symptoms in seasonal AR. For ocular symptoms and RQLQ, this probability was 56%. ○ For perennial AR, no evidence was available for the comparison between azelastine‐fluticasone versus olopatadine‐mometasone. ○ Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with azelastine‐fluticasone and olopatadine‐mometasone (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • A network meta‐analysis suggested that, compared to olopatadine‐mometasone, azelastine‐fluticasone is associated with a 23% probability of resulting in a nontrivial improvement in nasal symptoms in seasonal AR. For ocular symptoms and RQLQ, this probability was 56%.
  • For perennial AR, no evidence was available for the comparison between azelastine‐fluticasone versus olopatadine‐mometasone.
  • Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with azelastine‐fluticasone and olopatadine‐mometasone (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • Resources required, cost‐effectiveness and equity: A survey of ARIA experts suggested olopatadine‐mometasone to be more expensive than azelastine‐fluticasone in 8 out of 14 countries for which data were available. We did not identify any cost‐effectiveness study comparing these two medications. Neither azelastine‐fluticasone nor olopatadine‐mometasone are on the WHO List of Essential Medicines, but azelastine‐fluticasone seems to be available in a wider number of countries.
  • Acceptability and feasibility: MASK‐air data suggest that azelastine‐fluticasone is associated with higher adherence and treatment satisfaction. However, azelastine‐fluticasone is associated with higher odds of being used in co‐medication (a proxy of poor rhinitis control) than olopatadine‐mometasone. In addition, there are studies on sensory attributes that favor olopatadine‐mometasone. Both azelastine‐fluticasone and olopatadine‐mometasone display a fast onset of action.

Should a Combination of an Intranasal Corticosteroid and an Intranasal Decongestant vs. an Intranasal Corticosteroid Alone Be Used for the Treatment of AR?

  • RecommendationIn patients with AR, we suggest against using a combination of an INCS + intranasal decongestant over an INCS alone.Conditional recommendation based on very low certainty of evidence
  • Considerations in children and adolescents: The recommendation is applicable to children and adolescents.
  • Implementation considerations: This recommendation is particularly applicable to long‐term treatment (longer than 5 days). In some specific situations using intranasal decongestants for a short period of time—less than 5 days—when INCS are being introduced (to “compensate” for the slow onset of action of INCS) can be considered. However, if available and affordable, this can also be achieved with INAH+INCS (e.g., patients who cannot be treated for a long period of time with INAH+INCS due to costs or intolerance to bitter taste can have INAH+INCS for few days—to achieve fast symptom relief—followed by INCS). The ARIA panel recommends against the use of ephedrine‐based decongestants due to safety and legal concerns.

Brief Justification

  • Efficacy and safety ○ Primary studies assessing nasal symptoms were too different to allow for estimating meta‐analytical measures. However, these studies point to trivial differences when comparing the improvement of nasal symptoms between INCS + intranasal decongestants versus INCS alone. ○ For ocular symptoms, a single study indicated that “nonsignificant differences were identified for patients with seasonal AR” (no further information was provided). ○ Results from a network meta‐analysis suggested that INCS + intranasal decongestants and INCS are associated with a similar improvement in RQLQ, both in seasonal AR and perennial AR (trivial differences). ○ INCS + decongestants were associated with increased risk of adverse events compared to INCS (small but important difference). Of note, the long‐term use of decongestants has been linked to rhinitis medicamentosa. Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • Primary studies assessing nasal symptoms were too different to allow for estimating meta‐analytical measures. However, these studies point to trivial differences when comparing the improvement of nasal symptoms between INCS + intranasal decongestants versus INCS alone.
  • For ocular symptoms, a single study indicated that “nonsignificant differences were identified for patients with seasonal AR” (no further information was provided).
  • Results from a network meta‐analysis suggested that INCS + intranasal decongestants and INCS are associated with a similar improvement in RQLQ, both in seasonal AR and perennial AR (trivial differences).
  • INCS + decongestants were associated with increased risk of adverse events compared to INCS (small but important difference). Of note, the long‐term use of decongestants has been linked to rhinitis medicamentosa. Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • Resources required, cost‐effectiveness and equity: A survey of ARIA experts suggested INCS + intranasal decongestants to represent up to more $200 per year than INCS alone for countries for which data were available. No cost‐effectiveness studies have been identified comparing INCS + intranasal decongestants versus INCS alone. There is both an INCS (budesonide) and a decongestant (xylometazoline) on the WHO List of Essential Medicines.
  • Acceptability and feasibility: MASK‐air data suggest that INCS + decongestants are associated with lower adherence and treatment satisfaction. Intranasal decongestants display a faster onset of action than INCS.
  • Planetary health: Considering that INCS + intranasal decongestants are not produced as fixed combinations, the additional use of intranasal decongestants implies the use of additional resources with environmental impact.

Should an Intranasal Decongestant vs. no Treatment Be Used For the Treatment of AR?

  • RecommendationIn patients with AR, we suggest against using intranasal decongestants in the long term (longer than 5 days) over no treatment.Conditional recommendation based on very low certainty of evidence
  • Considerations in specific age groups and conditions: For preschool and young school‐aged children (< 12 years), there should be avoidance of intranasal decongestants. There should also be avoidance of intranasal decongestants in pregnant women, especially in the first trimester, considering the potential teratogenic effects of nasal decongestants. Considering the risk of serious adverse events, the use of intranasal decongestants in the elderly is also discouraged.
  • Implementation considerations: This recommendation concerns oxymetazoline, xylometazoline and tramazoline. The panel suggests that the use of intranasal decongestants should be restricted to short‐term relief (not longer than 5 days and preferably shorter) of nasal congestion. The ARIA panel also recommends against the use of ephedrine‐based decongestants due to safety and legal concerns.

Should a Combination of an Intranasal H1‐Antihistamine and an Intranasal Corticosteroid vs. an Intranasal Corticosteroid Alone Be Used for the Treatment of AR?

  • RecommendationIn patients with AR, we suggest using a fixed combination of an INAH and INCS over an INCS alone.Conditional recommendation based on moderate certainty of evidence for seasonal AR and on very low certainty of evidence for perennial AR
  • Implementation considerations: Aspects such as adherence, baseline severity and history of medication use may be relevant to be considered. Fixed combinations of INAH+INCS may be particularly favored in patients with severe symptoms. In low‐income countries or low‐resource settings, INCS may be preferred.

Brief Justification

  • Efficacy and safety ○ A network meta‐analysis suggested that INAH+INCS and INCS are associated with a similar improvement in nasal and ocular symptoms, as well as in RQLQ, both in seasonal AR and perennial AR (trivial differences). ○ Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with INAH+INCS and INCS (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • A network meta‐analysis suggested that INAH+INCS and INCS are associated with a similar improvement in nasal and ocular symptoms, as well as in RQLQ, both in seasonal AR and perennial AR (trivial differences).
  • Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with INAH+INCS and INCS (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • Resources required, cost‐effectiveness and equity: A survey of ARIA experts suggested INAH+INCS to be more expensive than INCS in 34 out of 36 countries for which data were available. However, INAH+INCS are likely cost‐effective in most countries both when considering a willingness‐to‐pay of $50,000/QALY gained or of one time the GDP per capita/QALY gained (the only exception may be some low‐ and middle‐income countries). One INCS—budesonide—is on the WHO List of Essential Medicines, but the same does not occur with INAH+INCS.
  • Acceptability and feasibility: MASK‐air data suggest that INAH+INCS are associated with higher treatment satisfaction and with lower odds of being used in co‐medication (a proxy of poor rhinitis control). In addition, INAH+INCS display a faster onset of action.

Should an Intranasal Corticosteroid vs. an Intranasal H1‐Antihistamine Be Used for the Treatment of AR?

  • Implementation considerations: INCS may be particularly recommended for patients having taste alterations when using INAH. For patients with corticosteroid‐phobia, epistaxis secondary to INCS or glaucoma, or having poor medication adherence, INAH may be the preferred intervention.

Brief Justification

  • Efficacy and safety ○ A network meta‐analysis suggested that, compared to INAH, INCS are associated with a trivial improvement in nasal symptoms and in RQLQ in seasonal and perennial AR. ○ For ocular symptoms, either differences between treatments were trivial (seasonal AR) or evidence was not found (perennial AR). ○ Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with INCS and INAH (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment. Although rare, pharmacovigilance data suggested glaucoma to be more frequent with INCS than INAH.
  • A network meta‐analysis suggested that, compared to INAH, INCS are associated with a trivial improvement in nasal symptoms and in RQLQ in seasonal and perennial AR.
  • For ocular symptoms, either differences between treatments were trivial (seasonal AR) or evidence was not found (perennial AR).
  • Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with INCS and INAH (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment. Although rare, pharmacovigilance data suggested glaucoma to be more frequent with INCS than INAH.
  • Resources required, cost‐effectiveness and equity: A survey of ARIA experts suggested INAH to be more expensive than INCS in 21 out of 29 countries for which data were available. In addition, in most countries where INCS are more expensive than INAH, INCS were found to be cost‐effective when considering a willingness‐to‐pay of $50,000/Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained or of one time the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita/QALY gained. One INCS—budesonide—is on the WHO List of Essential Medicines, but the same does not occur with INAH. In addition, INCS are available in more countries than INAH.
  • Acceptability and feasibility: MASK‐air data suggest that INCS are associated with higher adherence and treatment satisfaction, as well as with lower odds of being used in co‐medication (a proxy of poor rhinitis control). However, INAH display a faster onset of action.

Should a Combination of an Intranasal H1‐Antihistamine and an Intranasal Corticosteroid vs. an Intranasal H1‐Antihistamine Alone Be Used for the Treatment of AR?

  • RecommendationIn patients with AR, we suggest using a fixed combination of an INAH+INCS over an INAH alone.Conditional recommendation based on moderate certainty of evidence for seasonal AR and on very low certainty of evidence for perennial AR
  • Considerations in children and adolescents: The recommendation is applicable to children and adolescents, even though evidence is scarcerno studies on perennial AR and the only desirable outcome for which INAH+INCS are favored over INAH is rhinoconjunctivitis‐related quality‐of‐life

Brief Justification

  • Efficacy and safety ○ A network meta‐analysis suggested that, compared to INAH, INAH+INCS are associated with an improvement in nasal symptoms in seasonal and perennial AR (25% and 45% probability of nontrivial improvement in nasal symptoms, respectively). ○ For ocular symptoms, either differences between treatments were trivial (seasonal AR) or evidence was not found (perennial AR). ○ INAH+INCS displayed a higher probability of resulting in a nontrivial improvement of RQLQ in patients with seasonal AR (83%) than in patients with perennial AR (16%). ○ Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with INAH+INCS and INAH (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • A network meta‐analysis suggested that, compared to INAH, INAH+INCS are associated with an improvement in nasal symptoms in seasonal and perennial AR25% and 45% probability of nontrivial improvement in nasal symptoms, respectively
  • INAH+INCS displayed a higher probability of resulting in a nontrivial improvement of RQLQ in patients with seasonal AR (83%) than in patients with perennial AR16%
  • Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with INAH+INCS and INAH (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • Resources required, cost‐effectiveness and equity: A survey of ARIA experts suggested INAH+INCS to be more expensive than INAH in 23 out of 27 countries for which data were available. However, INAH+INCS are likely cost‐effective in most countries both when considering a willingness‐to‐pay of $50,000/QALY gained or of one time the GDP per capita/QALY gained (the only exception may be some low‐income countries). No INAH+INCS or INAH are on the WHO List of Essential Medicines.
  • Acceptability and feasibility: MASK‐air data suggest that INAH+INCS are associated with higher adherence and treatment satisfaction, as well as with lower odds of being used in co‐medication (a proxy of poor rhinitis control). In addition, INAH+INCS seem to display a faster onset of action.
  • Planetary health: No specific evidence was found in terms of comparative impact on planetary health, even though it is possible that the production of two active compounds may have a higher environmental impact than the production of one.
  • Efficacy and safety ○ Existing evidence is scarce and contradictory but overall suggests that intranasal antihistamines are associated with trivial or small improvements in nasal and ocular symptoms when compared to intranasal chromones. ○ For RQLQ, no evidence was found. ○ Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with INAH and intranasal chromones (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • Existing evidence is scarce and contradictory but overall suggests that intranasal antihistamines are associated with trivial or small improvements in nasal and ocular symptoms when compared to intranasal chromones.
  • For RQLQ, no evidence was found.
  • Similar frequencies of adverse events were observed with INAH and intranasal chromones (trivial difference). Serious adverse events associated with these interventions are rare and most of those reported in RCTs have been judged unlikely to be related to the treatment.
  • Resources required, cost‐effectiveness and equity: A survey of ARIA experts suggested INAH to be more expensive than intranasal chromones in 10 out of 16 countries for which data were available (intranasal chromones are not available in many countries). However, differences in costs tended to be small. We did not identify cost‐effectiveness studies comparing INAH to intranasal chromones. No INAH or intranasal chromone is on the WHO List of Essential Medicines.
  • Acceptability and feasibility: MASK‐air data suggest that INAH and intranasal chromones (i) are used in co‐medication at a similar frequency, and (ii) are associated with similar adherence. However, INAH are associated with higher treatment satisfaction.

Abstract

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts quality of life, work and school productivity. Over the last years, an important body of evidence resulting from mHealth data has led to a better understanding of AR. Such advances have motivated an EAACI‐endorsed update of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines (ARIA 2024–2025). This manuscript presents the ARIA 2024–2025 recommendations for intranasal treatments, one of the mainstays for AR management.

Methods: The ARIA 2024–2025 guideline panel issued recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence‐to‐decision framework. Several sources of evidence were used to inform panel judgments and recommendations, including systematic reviews, evaluation of mHealth and pharmacovigilance data, as well as a survey of experts on costs.

Results: Eleven guideline questions concerning intranasal treatments for AR were prioritized, leading to recommendations. Overall, these questions concern the choice between different classes of intranasal medications—most notably, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), antihistamines (INAH), fixed combinations of INAH+INCS and decongestants—or between different individual medications within each class. Four questions had not been evaluated in previous ARIA guidelines, while for the other three there was a change in the strength or directionality of recommendations. Overall, recommendations point to the suggested use of INAH+INCS over INAH or INCS and INCS over INAH.

Conclusion: This ARIA 2024–2025 article supports patients, their caregivers, and healthcare professionals in choosing an intranasal treatment. However, decisions on AR treatment should consider the clinical variability of the disease, patients' values, and the affordability of medications.

Contents of the original publication

The section headings of the original.

  • Introduction
  • Questions Addressed by This Guideline
  • Methodology
  • Questions and Outcomes of Interest
  • Evidence Review and Development of Recommendations
  • How to Use These Guidelines
  • Recommendations and Summary of Findings
  • New Questions in ARIA 2024–2025
  • Questions With a Change in Recommendation Directionality and/or Strength in ARIA 2024–2025
  • Other Questions Evaluated in ARIA 2024–2025
  • Conclusions
  • Supporting information

A question about this guideline?

Medelix answers clinical questions from guidelines and studies – every statement with its source.

Are you the rights holder and object to this reproduction? Write to contact@medelix.ai and we will take the page down promptly. Imprint