The efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray for allergic rhinitis and its relationship to topical effects.

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray is an intranasal corticosteroid for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis. This double-masked, double-dummy, parallel-group study was conducted to confirm that the efficacy of fluticasone propionate nasal spray is attributable to topical rather than systemic effects. A total of 304 patients with documented seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to receive fluticasone propionate nasal spray 200 micrograms once daily (n = 77), oral fluticasone propionate 5 mg once daily (n = 73), oral fluticasone propionate 10 mg once daily (n = 77), or placebo (n = 77) for 14 days. Plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations were determined at baseline and after 14 days of treatment (day 15). Nasal symptoms were recorded daily by patients and assessed weekly by clinicians. On day 15, more patients in the oral fluticasone propionate 5-mg or 10-mg groups, compared with patients in the fluticasone propionate nasal spray group or the placebo group, had detectable plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations, and mean concentrations were higher in the oral fluticasone propionate groups. Both clinician- and patient-rated total and individual nasal symptom scores for obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching were significantly lower in the fluticasone propionate nasal spray group compared with either of the oral fluticasone propionate groups or the placebo group. With few exceptions, oral fluticasone propionate (5 mg or 10 mg) was not significantly different from placebo on any measures of efficacy. These findings indicate that the efficacy of fluticasone propionate nasal spray (200 micrograms once daily) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis results from direct topical effects rather than from indirect effects after systemic absorption.

Placebo-controlled, double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide aerosol nasal inhaler in pediatric patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) aerosol nasal inhaler has been shown to effectively relieve the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults and adolescents. We conducted a study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily administration of TAA aerosol nasal inhaler in pediatric patients aged 6 to 11 years with grass seasonal allergic rhinitis. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study enrolled 116 children who were treated with either TAA aerosol nasal inhaler (220 micrograms/d) or placebo once daily for 2 weeks. Patients evaluated the severity of rhinitis symptoms (nasal stuffiness, discharge, sneezing, and itching) daily according to a four-point scale (0 = absent, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe). Patients' and physicians' global evaluations of overall treatment efficacy were assessed at the end of the 2-week treatment period. Patients treated with TAA aerosol nasal inhaler had significantly greater reductions in all nasal symptom scores overall and in virtually all symptoms at the end of week 1 and week 2 compared with those in the placebo group. Both patients' and physicians' global evaluations of efficacy favored TAA aerosol nasal inhaler over placebo. This study demonstrated that once-daily administration of 220 micrograms of TAA aerosol nasal inhaler was well tolerated and effectively reduced the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis in pediatric patients.

A comparison of the efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and loratadine, alone and in combination, for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal corticosteroids and oral antihistamines are both effective in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, although the therapeutic value of administering the two types of agents concurrently has rarely been evaluated. This study was designed to compared the efficacy, safety, and impact on quality of life of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FP ANS), loratadine, FP ANS plus loratadine, and placebo (an aqueous nasal spray plus tablet) in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis during the mountain cedar allergy season in south central Texas. METHODS: Six hundred patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were treated for 2 weeks with either FP ANS 200 microgram once daily, loratadine 10 mg once daily, the FP ANS and loratadine regimens combined, or placebo in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. RESULTS: Clinician- and patient-rated total and individual nasal symptom scores after 7 and 14 days of therapy and overall evaluations were significantly lower (P < .001) in the FP ANS and FP ANS plus loratadine groups compared with the loratadine only and placebo groups. Loratadine was not statistically different from placebo in clinician and patient symptom score ratings nor in overall clinician and patient evaluations. FP ANS plus loratadine and FP ANS monotherapy were comparable in efficacy in almost all evaluations; for some patient-rated symptoms the combination was found superior. Mean score changes in the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire from baseline to day 14 showed significantly greater improvement (P < .001) in quality of life in the FP ANS group than in the group of patients receiving loratadine only or placebo and no significant benefit was demonstrated in the FP ANS plus loratadine group over the FP ANS monotherapy group. No serious or unusual drug-related adverse events were reported. Combining loratadine with FP ANS did not alter the adverse events profile or frequency.

Double-blind assessment of azelastine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Azelastine is a chemically novel multifunctional antiallergy investigational drug capable of inhibiting mast-cell activation and the synthesis and/or release of chemical mediators of the upper and lower airway inflammatory response. In previous controlled clinical trials, azelastine was shown to be effective in treating the symptoms of both seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis. The objective of this 8-week double-blind trial was to evaluate further azelastine's efficacy and safety in improving the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis over a prolonged period of treatment. One hundred ninety-nine patients with symptomatic perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive in a double-blind fashion azelastine, 2 mg bid, clemastine fumarate, 1.34 mg bid, or placebo bid for 8 weeks. Patients treated with azelastine had superior mean percent improvements in the total symptom complex score (nose blows, sneezes, stuffy nose, runny nose, itchy nose, and itchy eyes/ears/throat) versus placebo at each evaluation point and overall across all 8 weeks (P < .01) of the trial. Improvements in the individual symptoms of rhinitis were statistically significant (P < or = .04) for nose blows, sneezes, runny nose, itchy nose, and itchy eyes, ears, and throat. Treatment with azelastine also resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in nasal congestion. Improvement in congestion was accompanied by a decreased requirement for backup decongestant medication. The adverse experiences were generally mild and well tolerated. Azelastine provided effective prolonged relief of the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis with no adverse effects that would limit its long-term use.

Intranasal flunisolide spray as an adjunct to oral antibiotic therapy for sinusitis.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of sinusitis is difficult and there are few controlled studies of customary therapies. In particular, the possible role of topical intranasal steroid as an adjunct to antibiotic treatment has not been evaluated. METHODS: The study was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel trial in which patients aged 14 years or older were recruited from allergy practices. All patients had maxillary sinusitis documented by radiographs. Treatment consisted of amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium 500 mg combined with nasal spray of either 100 micrograms flunisolide or placebo to each nostril three times a day for 3 weeks (phase I) followed by administration of flunisolide or placebo nasal spray alone three times a day for 4 weeks (phase II). RESULTS: Clinical symptoms and signs decreased significantly in both treatment groups during phase I (p < 0.01). There was a trend to greater improvement in the patients treated with flunisolide, but only the decrease in turbinate swelling/obstruction was statistically significant at the end of phase I when compared with placebo (p = 0.041). Patients' global assessment of overall effectiveness of treatment was higher for flunisolide than placebo after phase I (p = 0.007) and after phase II (p = 0.08). Maxillary sinus radiographs showed improvement in both treatment groups during phase I (p < 0.004) with somewhat greater regression of abnormal findings in patients treated with flunisolide after phase II (p = 0.066). However, 80% of radiographs were still abnormal at the end of phase I. All types of inflammatory cells were significantly decreased in nasal cytograms in patients treated with flunisolide in comparison with those treated with placebo. Flare-up of sinusitis during phase II occurred in 26% of with those treated with placebo. Flare-up of sinusitis during phase II occurred in 26% of patients treated with flunisolide and 35% of those treated with placebo and tended to be more severe in the latter, although these differences were not statistically significant. Adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal symptoms and headache, were similar in both groups and more frequent in phase I than in phase II, (42 vs 15 patients); these side effects were probably due to the antibiotic. CONCLUSION: The addition of flunisolide topical nasal spray as an adjunct to antibiotic therapy was most effective in global evaluations, tended to improve symptoms, to decrease inflammatory cells in nasal cytograms, to normalize ultrasound scans, and to aid regression of radiographic abnormalities compared with placebo spray.