A Multicentric, Prospective, Observational, Single-Arm Registry Study to Assess the Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Thrombophob Ointment (Heparin Sodium + Benzyl Nicotinate) in Indian Patients With Thrombophlebitis.

Purpose Thrombophlebitis is a frequent intravenous (IV) therapy consequence. Topical heparin for seven days is used as a treatment for thrombophlebitis. This study was performed to evaluate the clinical safety and effectiveness of the combination of heparin sodium & benzyl nicotinate (Thrombophob Ointment, manufactured by Zydus Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad, India) in thrombophlebitis patients in India. Methods A study carried out by 118 Indian doctors examined 2002 thrombophlebitis patients from 2016-2023, prescribing ointment containing heparin sodium and benzyl nicotinate. Patients were followed up on day three and day seven after starting the treatment, and safety and effectiveness were recorded, including adverse events. Result A total of 2002 patients were included in the study and males were predominant (58.15%). IV fluids (60.58%) were the leading cause of thrombophlebitis. The study found notable improvements in key markers of venous health over time. Compared to baseline, patients experienced significantly reduced severity of phlebitis, shorter venous lesion lengths, and lower pain and tenderness scores by both day 3 and day 7 (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Furthermore, these improvements continued between day 3 and day 7, indicating sustained positive effects (p<0.001 for all comparisons). After the application of the ointment, very few patients experienced adverse effects (0.25% on day three and 0.05% on day seven). Treatment effectiveness was excellent in 72% of patients, and treatment safety was excellent in 93% of patients. Conclusion The ointment containing heparin sodium and benzyl nicotinate was well tolerated and efficacious in the treatment of thrombophlebitis in Indian patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Fluticasone Furoate and Oxymetazoline Nasal Spray: A Novel First Fixed Dose Combination for the Management of Allergic Rhinitis with Nasal Congestion.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed dose combination of Fluticasone Furoate and Oxymetazoline Hydrochloride Nasal Spray 27.5/50 mcg (FDC) with Fluticasone Furoate Nasal Spray 27.5 mcg (Fluticasone) in the management of allergic rhinitis. Patients and Methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, two-arm, active-controlled, parallel, multicenter, comparative clinical study was conducted in patients with allergic rhinitis aged 18 years and above having moderate-to-severe nasal congestion. Results: A total of 250 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either the FDC or Fluticasone alone in a dose of two sprays in each nostril once daily at night. There was a significantly (P<0.001) greater reduction in night-time Total Nasal Symptom Score with the FDC as compared to Fluticasone at all the time points starting from as early as day 3 and sustained till the end of treatment (Day 28) (Day 3: -3.1 vs -2.2; Day 7: -4.0 vs -3.4; Day 14: -5.7 vs -5.0; Day 28: -7.0 vs -6.4). A significantly greater number of patients (P<0.05) had complete relief in Nasal Congestion with the FDC (44.7%) as compared to Fluticasone (26.8%). Both the study medications were well tolerated by all the patients. The proportion of patients showing worsening of symptoms (rebound congestion/rhinitis medicamentosa) after stoppage of medication was similar in both groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: The FDC was superior to Fluticasone alone in relieving the nasal congestion and reduction of Total Nasal Symptom Score in allergic rhinitis patients with moderate-to-severe nasal congestion when administered once daily in the evening. Oxymetazoline when used along with the nasal steroid in a once daily dose does not cause rebound congestion and rhinitis medicamentosa even after long-term continuous use of 28 days.

Long-term Persistence of Immunogenicity After Primary Vaccination and Response to Booster Vaccination With Typhoid Conjugate Vaccine: Results of a Phase IV Extension Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the persistence of antibodies three years after primary vaccination with typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) of either Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (Cadila-TCV) or Bharat Biotech International Ltd. (Bharat-TCV) administered in a previous phase II/III study, and to study the booster dose response to Cadila-TCV. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase IV extension study conducted in tertiary care and multispecialty hospitals in India. 112 subjects (Cadila-TCV-57, Bharat-TCV-55) who had participated in previous study were enrolled. Of these, eligible subjects received a single-dose of Cadila-TCV and were followed-up for 28 days post-booster. Primary outcome was persistence of antibodies 3 years after primary vaccination and seroconversion (≥4-fold rise in antibody titre from baseline) 28 days post-booster. Safety was based on reported adverse events (AEs) post-booster. RESULTS: The baseline GMT reported in the current study was significantly higher than pre-vaccination GMT reported in the previous study. 89/112 (79.5%) subjects had antibody titer ≥10 IU/mL at baseline; eligible subjects (n=17) who had baseline antibody titre <10 IU/mL were administered booster dose. All the vaccinated subjects showed seroconversion post-booster. The GMTs reported at 10 days and 28 days post-booster were significantly higher as compared to GMTs reported after primary vaccination in previous study. 4 (23.5%) vaccinated subjects reported 9 AEs; all were solicited and of mild/moderate intensity. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant persistence of immunogenicity after primary vaccination with both the TCVs, and robust immune response after booster vaccination with Cadila-TCV.

Efficacy and safety of avanafil as compared with sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: A randomized, double blind, multicenter clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of avanafil as compared with sildenafil in the management of patients with erectile dysfunction. METHODS: It was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, two-arm, active-controlled, parallel, multicenter, non-inferiority clinical study carried out in patients with erectile dysfunction for at least 3 months and International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function domain score of <26 at enrolment. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were randomized to receive either avanafil tablets 100 mg or sildenafil tablets 50 mg in 1:1 ratio. After 4 weeks of treatment, 40.0% of patients in the avanafil group and 45.6% of patients in the sildenafil group required dose escalation to a high dose (avanafil 200 mg/sildenafil 100 mg). The difference in the mean change of International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function score from baseline in the two groups increased from week 4 (1.1, 95% confidence interval -0.2 to 2.5) to week 8 (1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.1-2.7) and week 12 (2.1, 95% confidence interval 0.8-3.5), showing non-inferiority at week 4, and superiority at week 8 and week 12. Avanafil showed a faster onset of action as shown by a significantly better response to modified Sexual Encounter Profile 1 in the avanafil group (84.8%) as compared with that in the sildenafil group (28.2%; P < 0.001). Both avanafil and sildenafil were well tolerated by all the patients in the study; the most common adverse event reported during the study was headache in both the groups. CONCLUSION: Avanafil is superior to sildenafil in improving the International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function domain score at the end of 12 weeks of treatment with the added advantage of faster onset of action.

Safety and Immunogenicity of a DNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (ZyCoV-D): Results of an open-label, non-randomized phase I part of phase I/II clinical study by intradermal route in healthy subjects in India.

BACKGROUND: ZyCoV-D is a DNA vaccine candidate, which comprises a plasmid DNA carrying spike-S gene of SARS-CoV-2 virus along with gene coding for signal peptide. The spike(S) region includes the receptor-binding domain (RBD), which binds to the human angiotensin converting Enzyme (ACE)-2 receptor and mediates the entry of virus inside the cell. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, open-label, non-randomized, Phase 1 trial in India between July 2020 and October 2020. Healthy adults aged between 18 and 55 years were sequentially enrolled and allocated to one of four treatment arms in a dose escalation manner. Three doses of vaccine were administered 28 days apart and each subject was followed up for 28 days post third dose to evaluate safety and immunogenicity. FINDINGS: Out of 126 individuals screened for eligibility. Forty-eight subjects (mean age 34·9 years) were enrolled and vaccinated in the Phase 1 study Overall, 12/48 (25%) subjects reported at least one AE (i.e. combined solicited and unsolicited) during the study. There were no deaths or serious adverse events reported in Phase 1 of the study. The proportion of subjects who seroconverted based on IgG titers on day 84 was 4/11 (36·36%), 4/12 (33·33%), 10/10 (100·00%) and 8/10 (80·00%) in the treatment Arm 1 (1 mg: Needle), Arm 2 (1 mg: NFIS), Arm 3 (2 mg: Needle) and Arm 4 (2 mg: NFIS), respectively. INTERPRETATION: ZyCoV-D vaccine is found to be safe, well-tolerated and immunogenic in the Phase 1 trial. Our findings suggest that the DNA vaccine warrants further investigation.

Immunogenicity and safety of the first indigenously developed Indian tetravalent influenza vaccine (split virion) in healthy children (6 months to 17 years of age): a randomized, multicenter, phase III clinical trial.

This phase III clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the Tetravalent Influenza Vaccine (Split virion) I.P. (TetIV), containing two strains each of influenza A and B, developed indigenously in the country for the first time by M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited, India for use in the pediatric population (6 months -17 years of age), and compare it to that of a licensed seasonal Trivalent Influenza Vaccine (TriIV) of Sanofi Pasteur India Private Limited, containing two influenza A and one influenza B strains. Three hundred six subjects of either sex, 6 months to 17 years of age, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TetIV or TriIV. Immunogenicity assessments (antibodies against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Phuket, and B/Brisbane) were performed using the hemagglutination inhibition assay at baseline and 28 days after the last vaccination. TetIV was found to fulfill the criteria set by the United States Food and Drug Administration on the requirements of clinical data for licensure of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines for the pediatric population. The seroconversion rates with TetIV were 94.6% for A/H1N1, 93.9% for A/H3N2, 91.2% for B/Brisbane, and 87.2% for B/Phuket strains. TetIV showed non-inferiority and superiority in immune response, as compared to TriIV, against the shared strains and an additional B strain, respectively. Both the vaccines were tolerated well by all the study participants, and an addition of the fourth strain in TetIV did not compromise the safety as compared to that of TriIV. The most common adverse event reported in both groups was fever.

Immunogenicity and Safety of Typhoid Conjugate Vaccine in Healthy Indian Subjects: A Randomized, Active-controlled, Comparative Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the immunogenicity and safety of an investigational typhoid Vi conjugate vaccine (Test TCV) with a marketed typhoid Vi conjugate vaccine (Comparator TCV). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary care and multispecialty hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 240 healthy subjects of 6 months to 45 years. Pediatric (<18 years) subjects were enrolled after day 21 safety assessment of adult subjects. INTERVENTION: Participants received a single-dose of test TCV or comparator TCV at baseline and were followed up for 6 weeks post-vaccination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary variable was to demonstrate non-inferiority of the test TCV with the comparator TCV for seroconversion post-vaccination (³4-fold rise in antibody titre). Secondary variables were seroconversion in the adult and pediatric cohorts, and geometric mean titre of antibodies while the safety was based on reported adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 117 subjects (Adult-58, Pediatric-59) and 119 subjects (Adult-60, Pediatric-59) in test and comparator group, respectively completed the study. The seroconversion rate with test TCV (overall-94.8%, adult-96.6% and pediatric-93.1%) was non-inferior to comparator TCV (overall-91.6%, adult-91.7% and pediatric-91.5%). The geometric mean titres of antibodies (EU/mL) at baseline (test TCV: overall-7.6, adult-10.0, and pediatric-5.7; and comparator TCV: overall-8.0, adult-12.0, and pediatric-5.3) and at end of study (test TCV: overall-1121.0, adult-1411.0 and pediatric-891.1; and comparator TCV: overall-1104.0, adult-1199.0 and pediatric-1014.0) were also comparable between the groups (P>0.05 for all). The most common adverse event was injection-site pain followed by fever in both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity and safety of test TCV is comparable to already marketed comparator TCV.

Immunogenicity and safety of the first indigenously developed Indian tetravalent influenza vaccine (split virion) in healthy adults ≥ 18 years of age: A randomized, multicenter, phase II / III clinical trial.

This phase II / III clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the Tetravalent Influenza vaccine (Split virion) I.P. (TetIV) developed indigenously in the country for the first time by M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited, India containing two influenza A and two influenza B strains, one of each, Yamagata (B/Phuket) and Victoria (B/Brisbane) lineage and also compare it to that of an licensed seasonal Trivalent Influenza vaccine (TriIV) of Sanofi Pasteur India Private Limited, containing the two influenza A and only the Yamagata lineage (B/Phuket) strain. Three hundred and fifty subjects of either sex, aged more than 18 years of age, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the TetIV or TriIV. Immunogenicity assessments (antibody against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Phuket and B/Brisbane) were done by Haemagglutination Inhibition assay at baseline and 21 d after vaccination. Solicited (local and systemic) and unsolicited adverse events were recorded for up to 42 d following vaccination. The TetIV was found to fulfill the criteria set by the European and the US regulatory authorities and WHO guidance on the requirements of clinical data for licensure of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines. The seroconversion rates with TetIV were 93.5% for A/H1N1, 90.0% for A/H3N2, 70.0% for B/Phuket and 82.9% for B/Brisbane strain. There was no significant difference in the seroconversion and seroprotection rates at day 21 for A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B/Phuket in the two groups while the TetIV was superior to the TrivIV for the seroconversion and the seroprotection rate for the B/Brisbane strain (Victoria lineage). Both the vaccines were well tolerated by all the study participants; addition of the fourth strain in the TetIV did not compromise the safety as compared to TriIV. The most common systemic adverse event reported in both the groups was headache followed by fever.

Immunogenicity and safety of a novel MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) containing the Edmonston-Zagreb measles strain, the Hoshino mumps strain, and the RA 27/3 rubella strain: Results of a randomized, comparative, active controlled phase III clinical trial.

This phase III clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the single-dose and multi-dose formulations of a novel MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) developed by M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited, India (Cadila MMR vaccine), containing the Hoshino mumps strain, compared to that of an existing MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) developed by M/s Serum Institute of India Limited, India (Serum MMR vaccine). These two vaccines have similar measles and rubella strains, but different mumps strains (Hoshino in Cadila MMR vaccine, and L-Zagreb in Serum MMR vaccine). Three hundred and twenty-eight subjects of either sex, aged 15-18 months, were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the Cadila or Serum MMR vaccine. Immunogenicity assessments (IgG antibodies against measles, mumps, and rubella viruses) were done at baseline and 42 d after vaccination. Solicited (local and systemic) and unsolicited adverse events were recorded for up to 42 d following vaccination. The Cadila MMR vaccine was found to be non-inferior to the Serum MMR vaccine in terms of end-of-study proportion of subjects seropositive for anti-measles antibodies (100.0% in both groups), anti-mumps antibodies (94.5% vs. 94.0%), and anti-rubella antibodies (95.5% vs. 91.0%). Both vaccines were well tolerated by all study participants; the most common adverse event reported in both groups was fever, followed by rash. The results of this phase III clinical trial show that the novel Cadila MMR vaccine is non-inferior to the Serum MMR vaccine.

Clindamycin 1% Nano-emulsion Gel Formulation for the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Results of a Randomized, Active Controlled, Multicentre, Phase IV Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris of the face is a common dermatological disease with a significant impact on the quality of life, psychosocial development as well as self-esteem of the patients. Nano emulsion gel formulations are said to have various advantages over the conventional formulations. AIM: The present study was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of clindamycin with its conventional formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, active controlled, multicentric, phase IV clinical trial evaluated the treatment of patients with acne vulgaris of the face by a nano emulsion gel formulation or conventional gel formulation of clindamycin (as phosphate) 1% locally applied twice daily for 12 weeks as per random allocation. Acne lesion counts (inflammatory, non-inflammatory and total) and severity grading were carried out on the monthly scheduled visits along with tolerability assessments. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (97 males) were included for Intention to Treat analysis in the trial with 100 patients in each group. Reductions in total (69.3 vs. 51.9%; p<0.001), inflammatory (73.4 vs. 60.6%; p<0.005) and non inflammatory (65.1 vs. 43.7%; p<0.001) acne lesions were reported to be significantly greater with the nano-emulsion gel formulation as compared to the conventional gel formulation. Significantly more reduction in the mean acne severity score was noticeable with the nano-emulsion gel formulation (-1.6 ± 0.9 vs. -1.0 ± 0.8; p<0.001) than the comparator. A trend towards better safety profile of the nano emulsion gel formulation was reported. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face, clindamycin nano emulsion gel formulation appears to be more effective than the conventional gel formulation and is also well tolerated.

Ramosetron hydrochloride for the prevention of cancer chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: The Indian experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite the advent of 5-HT3 antagonists, control of delayed gastrointestinal adverse events with cancer chemotherapy is still not optimal. This open label, active controlled, multicentric clinical trial was undertaken to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of ramosetron with ondansetron for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with emetogenic cancer chemotherapy in adult patients in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrolled patients received treatment with ramosetron hydrochloride 0.1 mg or ondansetron hydrochloride 4 mg tablets once daily in the morning for 5 days starting 1 h before the start of chemotherapy. Severity grades of nausea and vomiting were recorded on a daily basis for a period of 5 days and complete response rate (CRR) and effective rate (ER) were calculated. Clinical adverse events were recorded and hematological and biochemical investigations were performed for safety assessment. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients in ramosetron group and 100 patients in ondansetron group completed the study and were eligible for efficacy and safety analysis. CRR and ERs show that while ramosetron is non-inferior to ondansetron in the control of early nausea and vomiting (occurring during the first 24 h) after the treatment with emetogenic chemotherapy, it is superior to ondansetron in the control of delayed nausea and vomiting (occurring after the first 24 h). The proportion of patients achieving a cumulative complete response (for the entire study period) is significantly greater in ramosetron group as compared to ondansetron group (27.2% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.001). Ramosetron was well tolerated by all the study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Ramosetron is significantly more effective than ondansetron for the control of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by emetogenic cancer chemotherapy.

A randomized, comparative, multicentric clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of zileuton extended-release tablets with montelukast sodium tablets in patients suffering from chronic persistent asthma.

Leukotriene (LT) modifiers are anti-inflammatory drugs that are useful as an add-on therapy with first-line asthma-controller medications. This group includes LT synthesis inhibitors (eg, Zileuton) and receptor antagonists (eg, Montelukast), whose direct comparative clinical data are not available. This study was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of orally administered Zileuton extended-release (ER) with Montelukast sodium in patients suffering from chronic persistent asthma. Patients of 18-65 years of age with mild to moderate chronic stable asthma were randomized to treatment with Zileuton ER 2400 mg/d or Montelukast 10 mg/d for 12 weeks. Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and asthma symptoms (cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and shortness of breath each on a 4-point scale) were assessed on monthly scheduled out-patient visits. Safety assessments by clinical and laboratory parameters were carried out during the course of the study. Among 210 patients eligible for efficacy assessment, PEFR improved by 64.8 ± 52.8 (95% confidence interval: 54.8-74.7) L/min with Zileuton ER (n = 109) and 40.6 ± 47.5 (31.3-49.9) L/min with Montelukast (n = 101; P < 0.001), whereas percent improvements were 27.0% (22.6%-31.5%) versus 18.4% (14.1%-22.7%), respectively (P = 0.006). Zileuton ER lead to ≥12% PEFR improvements in 74 of 109 [67.9% (59.1%-76.7%)] patients, whereas the same was noted in 52 of 101 [51.5% (41.7%-61.2%)] patients receiving Montelukast (P = 0.015). The reduction in the mean overall symptom intensity score was also significantly better with Zileuton ER [-5.0 ± 2.1 (4.6-5.4) versus -4.2 ± 2.3 (3.8-4.7)] (P = 0.018); however, the same was not observed for the decline in the individual symptom scores. A lesser but not significantly different adverse event rate was reported in the Zileuton ER group than the Montelukast group with the commonest events being headache and gastrointestinal effects in both the groups. Thus, Zileuton ER seems to be more efficacious than Montelukast and well tolerated for the treatment of mild to moderate chronic persistent asthma in adult patient population. Further studies can elucidate the comparative treatment benefits of these LT modifiers in asthma management.

Efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin 1% combination in acne vulgaris: a randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, phase IV clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is a very common skin disease with a significant detrimental effect on the quality of life of the patients. AIMS: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination with its conventional formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face. It was a prospective, randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, clinical trial. METHODS: Eligible patients suffering from acne vulgaris of the face were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with a nano-emulsion gel or conventional gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin (as phosphate) 1% combination for 12 weeks. Total, inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts, with grading of acne severity were carried out on a monthly basis. Safety assessments were done to determine the comparative local and systemic tolerability. Two-tailed significance testing was carried out with appropriate statistical tests, and P-values < 0.05 were considered as significant. RESULTS: 209/212 patients enrolled in the study were eligible for efficacy and safety assessments in both nano-emulsion gel (118/119 patients) and conventional gel (91/93 patients) groups. Significantly better reductions in total (79.7% vs. 62.7%), inflammatory (88.7% vs. 71.4%) and noninflammatory (74.9% vs. 58.4%) lesions were reported with the nano-emulsion gel as compared to the conventional gel (P < 0.001 for all). Mean acne severity score also reduced significantly more with the nano-emulsion formulation (1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0; P < 0.001) than the comparator. Significantly lower incidence and lesser intensity of adverse events like local irritation (4.2% vs. 19.8%; P < 0.05) and erythema (0.8% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.05) were recorded with the nano-emulsion gel. CONCLUSIONS: The nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination appears to be more efficacious and better tolerated than the conventional formulation for the treatment of acne vulgaris in Indian patients. Further studies can elucidate the comparative treatment benefits of this nano-emulsion gel formulation.

An open label, active controlled, multicentric clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in adult Indian patients suffering from allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a common upper respiratory tract inflammation associated with a significant morbidity in all the age groups. Fluticasone furoate is a new potent topical glucocorticoid for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate (FF) nasal spray 110 microg/day with fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal spray 200 microg/day for the relief of symptoms of allergic rhinitis in adult Indian patients. METHODS: Clinically symptomatic patients (n=220) with allergic rhinitis received treatment with FF or FP for 2 weeks in this comparative, open label, multicentric, clinical trial. Nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, nasal itching, and sneezing) and ocular symptoms (itching/burning eyes, tearing/watering eyes, and eye redness) were recorded on a 4-point categoric scale by the patients. The efficacy was assessed by the change in nasal and ocular symptom scores as their subtotals (Total Nasal Symptom Score and Total Ocular Symptom Score) and grand total (Total Symptom Score). RESULTS: FF produced significantly better improvement in Total Symptom Score (-10.4 +/- 3.2 vs. -8.9 +/- 3.5, p<0.005) and Total Nasal Symptom Score (-7.3 +/- 2.2 vs. -6.2 +/- 2.6, p<0.005) as compared to FP. Also a significantly larger percentage of patients achieved complete symptomatic relief with FF (45.3% vs. 31.4%, p<0.05). FF was also better tolerated than FP. CONCLUSION: FF nasal spray is significantly more effective and better tolerated than FP nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adult Indian patients.