Search

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.

This 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of a new formulation of flunisolide nasal spray with the original formulation in the treatment of allergic rhinitis due to mountain cedar pollenosis. It was conducted at three clinical centers in close geographic proximity. A total of 216 patients, ranging in age from 14 to 77 years (mean, 44 years), took at least one dose of study drug and therefore were evaluable for the safety analysis. A total of 185 patients (85%) completed the study, and 136 patients were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Both formulations of flunisolide were comparable in terms of relief of rhinitis symptoms, and the new flunisolide formulation was better tolerated than the original formulation. Both active formulations were superior to their respective vehicles (P < 0.001) using multiple measures of allergic rhinitis symptoms relief. Use of escape medication (chlorpheniramine maleate) was significantly (P < or = 0.034) greater in the placebo group when compared with their respective active treatment groups. No therapeutic effect was observed with symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Significantly fewer patients who were treated with the new formulation flunisolide reported nasal burning and stinging when compared with the original formulation (P = 0.006). In conclusion, the new formulation showed similar efficacy and improved tolerability in the treatment of allergic rhinitis compared with the original formulation. This new formulation not only offers clinicians a useful therapeutic addition for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, but may also improve patient compliance.

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.

Background: We compared the efficacy and tolerability of the intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate with that of the antihistamine terfenadine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis., Methods: Two hundred thirty-two adults and adolescents with seasonal allergic rhinitis received intranasal fluticasone propionate (200 micrograms once daily), terfenadine tablets (60 mg twice daily), or placebo for 2 weeks in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. Main outcome measures were clinician- and patient-rated individual and total nasal symptom scores (based on ratings of nasal obstruction, sneezing, nasal itching, and rhinorrhea); clinician-rated overall response to therapy; changes in nasal inflammatory cell counts; adverse events; and morning plasma cortisol concentrations., Results: Both clinician- and patient-rated total and individual nasal symptom scores were significantly lower in the fluticasone group than in either the terfenadine group or the placebo group at nearly every measured time point throughout the treatment period. After 2 weeks of therapy, clinician-rated total nasal symptom scores decreased by 49% in the fluticasone group compared with 27% in the terfenadine group and 19% in the placebo group. In general, therapy with terfenadine was not statistically distinguishable from that with placebo based on patient-rated total or individual nasal symptom scores. According to clinician ratings, 64% of fluticasone-treated patients compared with 49% and 44% of patients treated with terfenadine and placebo, respectively, experienced significant or moderate improvement. A greater percentage of fluticasone-treated patients compared with either terfenadine- or placebo-treated patients experienced reductions in intranasal eosinophil and basophil counts after 2 weeks of therapy. No unusual or serious drug-related adverse events were reported. Morning plasma cortisol concentrations after 2 weeks of therapy did not differ among groups., Conclusion: Fluticasone aqueous nasal spray, a well-tolerated corticosteroid preparation that can be administered once daily, is more effective than terfenadine tablets or placebo in controlling symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Background: Azelastine solution is a topically (nasal) administered antiallergy drug with a preclinical profile suggestive of efficacy in patients with allergic rhinitis., Objectives: The study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of two dosages of azelastine nasal spray (2 sprays per nostril once daily and twice daily) with that of placebo in the treatment of patients with symptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis., Methods: Two hundred fifty-one patients (12 years of age or older) were randomized to treatment in this 2-week, double-blind, parallel-group study. Primary efficacy variables were Major Symptom Complex (nose blows, sneezes, runny nose, itchy nose, watery eyes) and Total Symptoms Complex (Major Symptom Complex plus itchy eyes/ears/throat/palate, cough, postnasal drip)., Results: Patients treated with azelastine had mean percent improvements in Total and Major Symptom Complex scores that were consistently superior to placebo at each evaluation point. Overall, improvements were statistically significant (p < or = 0.05) in the Total Symptoms Complex for both azelastine groups and in the Major Symptom Complex for the twice daily group with a trend toward statistical significance for the once daily group. Azelastine was superior to placebo in improving all individual rhinitis symptoms. Adverse experiences in the azelastine groups were minor and infrequent., Conclusion: The results support the efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal 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.

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.