scholarly journals Efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate and budesonide in management of allergic rhinitis—a prospective comparative study

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Kiruba Shankari ◽  
Swathi Suresh ◽  
Rukaiah Fatma Begum
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Fluticasone Propionate ◽  
Eosinophil Count ◽  
Total Daily Dose ◽  
Ocular Symptoms ◽  
Group I ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
Symptom Scores ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
Ige Mediated

Abstract Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) or Hay fever is a chronic inflammation of the nasal mucosa induced by IgE-mediated hypersensitivity due to exposure of various allergens. AR occurs as a response against these inhaled allergens that cause inflammation of nasal mucosal membranes. In this study, a reliable treatment for allergic rhinitis with maximum effectiveness and minimal side effects was assessed. This study compared the effectiveness of intranasal Fluticasone propionate (FUP) and intranasal Budesonide (BUD) in reducing the eosinophil count and in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms. This prospective study was conducted on 62 cases of allergic rhinitis and patients with mild-to-moderate allergic rhinitis were selected for the study. They were randomly divided into two groups; group I consists of 30 patients who received intranasal Fluticasone propionate aqueous spray, total daily dose of 200 μg (50 μg/spray) as 2 sprays in each nostril administered once daily, whereas the group II consists of 32 patients who received intranasal Budesonide aqueous spray, total daily dose of 400 μg/day (100 μg/spray) as 1 spray in each nostril administered twice daily. Results Analysis on patient-based symptom scores revealed that both the groups showed statistically significant reduction in symptoms. Fluticasone propionate was found to be significantly more effective (P < 0.05) than Budesonide in reducing sneezing, nasal itching and majority of symptoms of individual symptom scores. Budesonide showed somewhat similar effect in reducing nasal blockage at 4 weeks of treatment. Conclusion Clinically, both the drugs showed statistically significant improvement when compared to baseline, but Fluticasone propionate was superior at reducing nasal symptoms, ocular symptom and eosinophil count.

scholarly journals MP-AzeFlu in Moderate-to-Severe Allergic Rhinitis: A Literature Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ludger Klimek ◽  
William E. Berger ◽  
Jean Bousquet ◽  
Paul K. Keith ◽  
Peter Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Fluticasone Propionate ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Symptomatic Disease ◽  
Intranasal Corticosteroids ◽  
Need For Treatment ◽  
Ocular Symptoms ◽  
Symptom Complex

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is prevalent, and many patients present with moderate-to-severe symptomatic disease. The majority of patients are not satisfied with their AR treatment, despite the use of concurrent medications. These gaps underscore the need for treatment with more effective options for moderate-to-severe AR. The authors’ objective was to review systematically the efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of AR. The primary outcomes studied were nasal, ocular, and total symptoms. Other outcomes included time to onset and of AR control, quality of life, and safety. Searches of PubMed and Cochrane databases were conducted on May 14, 2020, with no date restrictions, to identify publications reporting data on MP-AzeFlu. Clinical studies of any phase were included. Studies were excluded if they were not in English, were review articles, did not discuss the safety and efficacy of MP-AzeFlu for AR symptoms. Treatment of AR with MP-AzeFlu results in effective, sustained relief of nasal and ocular symptoms, and faster onset and time to control compared with intranasal azelastine or fluticasone propionate. Long-term use of MP-AzeFlu was safe, with benefits in children, adults, and adults aged ≥65 years. Other treatment options, including fluticasone propionate and azelastine alone or the combination of intranasal corticosteroids and oral antihistamine, do not provide the same level of efficacy as MP-AzeFlu in terms of rapid and sustained relief of the entire AR symptom complex. Furthermore, MP-AzeFlu significantly improves patient quality of life. MP-AzeFlu is a currently available combination that may satisfy all these patient needs and expectations.

A Comparison of Aqueous Suspensions of Budesonide Nasal Spray (128 μg and 256 μg Once Daily) and Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray (200 μg Once Daily) in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin A. Stern ◽  
Ronald Dahl ◽  
Lars P. Nielsen ◽  
Bente Pedersen ◽  
Camilla Schrewelius
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Fluticasone Propionate ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Runny Nose ◽  
Aqueous Suspensions ◽  
Symptom Scores

The efficacy of aqueous suspensions of budesonide nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray, in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, was compared in a large, placebo-controlled, two-center study. A 1-week baseline period was followed by a 4- to 6-week treatment period during which 635 adult patients, aged 18–72 years, were randomized to receive either placebo, budesonide 128 μg, or 256 μg once daily, or fluticasone propionate, 200 μg once daily. Nasal and eye symptoms, overall treatment efficacy and safety assessments were made during the study period. Combined, as well as individual, nasal symptoms were significantly improved in all three active treatment groups compared with placebo therapy. Treatment with 256 μg/day of budesonide was found to be significantly more effective in reducing the sneezing score compared with 200 μg/day of fluticasone propionate. Analysis of symptom scores on days when the pollen count was greater than 10 grains/m3 revealed 256 μg/day of budesonide therapy to be significantly more effective in reducing combined symptom scores as well as the individual scores for sneezing and runny nose, compared with 200 μg/day fluticasone propionate. The higher dose of budesonide (256 μg/day) was also more effective than the lower dose (128 μg/day) in reducing sneezing scores and statistical significance was almost reached for the reduction in combined symptom and runny nose scores. Substantial or total control of symptoms was achieved by 31.4%, 85.3%, 88.4%, and 81.9% of patients receiving placebo, 128 μg/day of budesonide, 256 μg/day of budesonide, and 200 μg/day of fluticasone propionate, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was low in all treatment groups. In conclusion, both budesonide and fluticasone propionate treatments were effective and well-tolerated in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. However, 256 μg/day of budesonide tended to be more effective than 200 μg/day of fluticasone propionate and 128 μg/day of budesonide, especially when patients were exposed to a higher pollen load.

A Comparison of Loratadine, a New Nonsedating Antihistamine, with Clemastine and Placebo in Patients with Fall Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

1987 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
James P. Kemp ◽  
Sami L. Bahna ◽  
Paul Chervinsky ◽  
Gary S. Rachelefsky ◽  
James M. Seltzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Parallel Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Daily Diaries ◽  
Ocular Symptoms ◽  
Symptom Scores ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
To Receive

Loratadine is a new nonsedating long-acting H1-antagonist which has been shown to be effective at various doses in controlling symptoms of spring seasonal allergic rhinitis. In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel study, 313 adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe, skin-test positive, fall seasonal rhinitis were randomized to receive either loratadine, 10 mg, in the morning and placebo in the evening, clemastine 1 mg. b.i.d., or placebo b.i.d. for 2 weeks. Patients maintained daily diaries of nasal and ocular symptoms and of adverse effects. They were evaluated before and 7 and 14 days after starting treatment. The mean symptom scores on days 7 and 14 showed greater improvement with both loratadine and clemastine treatments than with placebo. The incidence of somnolence in the loratadine group by comparison with the placebo group was not statistically different, whereas clemastine caused significantly more drowsiness than did placebo. We conclude that loratadine, 10 mg, once a day is as effective as clemastine b.i.d. in decreasing the symptoms of fall seasonal rhinitis and the incidence of somnolence with loratadine is not statistically different from that with placebo.

Efficacy of Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray on Ocular Symptoms Relief in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

2015 ◽  
Vol 135 (2) ◽  
pp. AB271
Author(s):  
Paul H. Ratner ◽  
Julius H. Van Bavel ◽  
Dale E. Mohar ◽  
Robert L. Jacobs ◽  
Frank Hampel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Fluticasone Propionate ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Ocular Symptoms

Effect of perennial dust mites allergy on symptom severity of autumn allergic rhinitis in adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 363-371
Author(s):  
Qingqing Xu ◽  
Yuan Zhang ◽  
Luo Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Immunoglobulin E ◽  
Pollen Allergy ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Dust Mites ◽  
Pollen Allergens ◽  
Ocular Symptoms ◽  
Artemisia Argyi ◽  
Ige Mediated

Background: Multiple immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated sensitizations and/or allergies often coexist in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). Several simultaneous allergen exposures in multiple IgE-mediated sensitizations and/or allergies may increase the allergen load and be related to disease severity. No study has verified whether positive allergen serum IgE levels and allergen categories together are associated with AR severity in adults. Objective: To investigate the effects of perennial dust mites (DMs) allergy and multiple serum sIgE-mediated autumn pollen allergy coexistence on symptom severity in adult patients with AR in autumn. Methods: In total, 153 patients with AR and with autumn pollen allergy (Artemisia argyi, ragweed, and hop) with or without DMs allergy were recruited in the autumn pollen season. Symptom severity was assessed by using the Chinese version of the visual analog scale (VAS): four rhinitis symptoms (sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal pruritus, and nasal congestion) and two ocular symptoms (ocular itching and/or grittiness and/or redness, and ocular tearing) were scored at approximately the same period. We measured allergen serum sIgE levels for the inhaled allergens. The effects of DMs allergy and multiple autumn pollen allergy coexistence on symptom severity were analyzed. Results: Neither the sum of the autumn pollen allergens categories (total number of positive autumn pollen allergens, i.e., Artemisia argyi or ragweed or hop positive: 1; Artemisia argyi and ragweed positive: 2; Artemisia argyi, ragweed, and hop positive: 3) nor serum sIgE levels( total sIgE levels of positive autumn pollen allergens) exerted any influence on the severity of nasal and ocular symptoms (p > 0.05). When the concomitant DMs allergy status was considered, the sum of the positive autumn pollen allergen categories and accumulated positive autumn pollen and DMs serum sIgE levels (total levels of serum sIgE of positive autumn pollen allergens plus the levels of serum sIgE of DMs) had no influence on patients’ symptom severity (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The coexistence of perennial DMs allergy and multiple autumn pollen allergy did not affect the severity of symptoms among adult patients with AR and with autumn pollen allergy in autumn.

Efficacy of daily intranasal fluticasone propionate on ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis

2015 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Ratner ◽  
Julius Van Bavel ◽  
Dale Mohar ◽  
Robert L. Jacobs ◽  
Frank Hampel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Fluticasone Propionate ◽  
Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Ocular Symptoms

scholarly journals Experience Of Ocular Symptoms Among Allergic Rhinitis Patients Depending On The Type Of Aeroallergens

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-318
Author(s):  
Vesna Velickovic ◽  
Sladjana Simovic ◽  
Tatjana Sarenac ◽  
Natasa Mihailovic ◽  
Svetlana Ristic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Nasal Congestion ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Runny Nose ◽  
Ocular Symptoms ◽  
Nasal Symptoms ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Ige Mediated ◽  
Indoor Aeroallergens ◽  
Indoor And Outdoor

Abstract The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of ocular symptoms and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics in AR patients depending on sensitisation to various types of aeroallergens. Allergic rhinitis is defined as an IgE-mediated inflammation of the lining of the nose that is characterized by nasal symptoms, including nasal congestion, sneezing, itching of nose and runny nose. Patients suffering from allergic rhinitis frequently experience ocular symptoms such as ocular redness, eye itching and tears. The frequency of ocular symptoms in our study population was 27,6%. No statistical significance was found in the mean ages of the patients who did or did not experience ocular symptoms p>0,05 (p=0,243). Our results indicated that there were no statistical differences (p>0,05) among the groups of allergic rhinitis patients based on experiencing nasal symptoms according to the types of aeroallergens. Our results indicated that there were significant experiences of ocular symptoms in patients who were sensitised to outdoor aeroallergens (p<0,001) and significant sensitisation to both outdoor and indoor aeroallergens (p<0,05). Experiencing the examined ocular symptoms, including ocular redness, eye itching and tears, demonstrated highly statistical significance (p<0,001) among the groups of allergic rhinitis patients who were sensitised to indoor aeroallergens and outdoor aeroallergens, and there was statistical significance (p<0,05) among the groups of allergic rhinitis patients who were sensitised to indoor aeroallergens and both types of aeroallergens (indoor and outdoor). Ocular symptoms are more common in patients who are sensitised to outdoor aeroallergens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document