Treating acute rhinosinusitis: comparing efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray, amoxicillin, and placebo

BACKGROUND: Intranasal corticosteroids used with antibiotics are known to improve rhinosinusitis symptoms compared with antibiotic therapy alone. However, the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroid monotherapy for acute, uncomplicated rhinosinusitis is not established. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) versus amoxicillin and placebo in patients with acute, uncomplicated rhinosinusitis. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, subjects (> or =12 years; N = 981) were randomized to MFNS 200 microg once daily or twice daily for 15 days, amoxicillin 500 mg 3 times daily for 10 days, or respective placebo. Follow-up was 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean am/pm major symptom score over the treatment phase. Secondary efficacy endpoints included total symptom score. Safety assessments included disease recurrence during follow-up and adverse event monitoring. RESULTS: Mometasone furoate nasal spray 200 microg twice daily was significantly superior to placebo (P < .001) and amoxicillin (P = .002) at improving major symptom score. Starting on day 2, MFNS 200 microg twice daily improved total symptom score throughout treatment versus amoxicillin (P = .012) and placebo (P < .001). Global response to treatment was significantly greater with MFNS 200 microg twice daily versus amoxicillin (P = .013) and placebo (P = .001). Although significantly superior to placebo, MFNS 200 microg once daily was not superior to amoxicillin for the primary or secondary efficacy endpoints. All treatments were well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute, uncomplicated rhinosinusitis, MFNS 200 microg twice daily produced significant symptom improvements versus amoxicillin and placebo, without predisposing the patient to disease recurrence or bacterial infection.     

Effective dose range of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) 400 microg, twice daily, as adjunctive treatment with oral antibiotic significantly improved symptoms of recurrent rhinosinusitis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of MFNS 200 microg, twice daily, and 400 microg, twice daily, compared with placebo as adjunctive treatment with oral antibiotic for acute rhinosinusitis. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 967 outpatients with computed tomographic scan-confirmed moderate to severe rhinosinusitis received amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium (Augmentin, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC) 875 mg, twice daily, for 21 days with adjunctive twice daily MFNS 200 microg, MFNS 400 microg, or placebo nasal spray. Patients recorded scores of six rhinosinusitis symptoms and any adverse events twice daily. Pre- and postcosyntropin-stimulation plasma cortisol levels were measured in a subset of patients at selected study sites. RESULTS: Treatment with MFNS 200 microg or 400 microg, twice daily, produced significantly greater improvements in total symptoms score (primary efficacy variable) day 1 to day 15 average (50% and 51%, respectively) than placebo (44%, P < or = 0.017). Both doses of MFNS produced significant total symptoms score improvement over placebo by day 4, and maintained efficacy over the entire 21-day study. Relief of individual symptoms showed a similar pattern. Both doses of MFNS were well tolerated, and adverse events were similar to that of placebo. Cosyntropin stimulation showed no evidence of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression. CONCLUSIONS: As adjunctive therapy to oral antibiotic treatment, MFNS at doses of 200 microg or 400 microg, twice daily, was well tolerated and significantly more effective in reducing the symptoms of rhinosinusitis than antibiotic therapy alone.     

Added relief in the treatment of acute recurrent sinusitis with adjunctive mometasone furoate nasal spray. The Nasonex Sinusitis Group

BACKGROUND: Intranasal glucocorticoids are effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Their effectiveness as an anti-inflammatory adjunct in the treatment of acute recurrent sinusitis has not been adequately established in a controlled clinical study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that intranasal corticosteroid treatment produces additional relief in the treatment of acute sinusitis with oral antibiotics. METHODS: Patients who were 12 years old and older with a history of recurrent sinusitis were treated while experiencing a new episode of acute sinusitis, which was diagnosed by symptoms and confirmed by computed tomography scan of the paranasal sinuses. Patients were treated for 21 days with amoxicillin clavulanate potassium and randomized to receive concurrent mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS; Nasonex [400 microg, twice daily]; n = 200 patients) or placebo spray (twice daily; n = 207 patients). Symptom scores for headache, facial pain, congestion, purulent rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and cough were recorded at baseline and throughout treatment. RESULTS: Baseline symptom scores showed a moderate level of symptom severity comparable in both groups. Patient-recorded twice daily symptom scores showed that adjunctive treatment with MFNS caused a significantly greater decrease in total symptom score (primary efficacy variable) and in individual scores of inflammatory symptoms associated with the obstruction process (headache, congestion, and facial pain) compared with placebo. Symptoms associated with the secretory processes were improved to a lesser degree. Therapy-related local adverse events were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of intranasal corticosteroid, MFNS 400 microg twice daily, to antibiotics significantly reduces symptoms of acute sinusitis compared with antibiotic treatment alone.     

Mometasone furoate nasal spray increases the number of minimal-symptom days in patients with acute rhinosinusitis

BackgroundAcute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is triggered by viral or, uncommonly, bacterial infection, causing inflammatory symptoms for ≤12 weeks.ObjectiveTo investigate effects of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) vs amoxicillin and placebo on minimal-symptom days.MethodsA double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled 15-day study randomly assigned patients 12 years of age or older to MFNS 200 μg twice daily, MFNS 200 μg once daily, amoxicillin 500 mg 3 times daily, or placebo.Patients had baseline rhinosinusitis major symptom score (MSS; combined rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, congestion, sinus headache, facial pain) of ≥5 and ≤12 (maximum: 15) for 7 to 28 days; scores were similar among groups. Minimal-symptom days and minimal-congestion days were defined post hoc by average am/pm MSS ≤4 and average am/pm congestion ≤1.ResultsMFNS twice daily (n = 234) showed more minimal-symptom days vs placebo (n = 246) (62.69% vs 50.33%; P < .0001) or amoxicillin (n = 248) (54.35%; P = .0040). The MFNS QD was associated with numerically more minimal-symptom days than amoxicillin or placebo (54.72%; P ≤ .8982). MFNS was associated with more minimal-congestion days than placebo (72.97%, 67.73%, and 56.67% for twice daily, once daily, and placebo; P < .0001, each vs placebo) and MFNS BID with more minimal-congestion days than amoxicillin (72.97% vs 64.15%; P = .0007). Median time to first minimal-symptom day sustained until study end was 8.5 days for MFNS BID vs. 11 for placebo (P = .0085).ConclusionMFNS 200 μg twice daily significantly increased minimal-symptom days vs amoxicillin or placebo in patients with ARS. Results of this intranasal corticosteroids (INS) therapy indicate it can improve outcomes and potentially reduce inappropriate antibiotic use.     

A dose-ranging study of mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (MFNS; Nasonex) 200 microg once daily for the treatment and prophylaxis of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and treatment of perennial rhinitis have been demonstrated in adults. However, the dose response of MFNS in pediatric patients has not yet been characterized. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the dose-response relationship of 3 different doses of MFNS in a pediatric population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study of 679 children 6 to 11 years of age with histories of SAR and documented positive skin test responses. Patients were randomized to one of the following treatment groups for 4 weeks: MFNS 25 microgram once daily, MFNS 100 microgram once daily, MFNS 200 microgram once daily, beclomethasone dipropionate 84 microgram twice daily (168 microgram/day), or placebo. Physician evaluations were performed at days 4, 8, 15, and 29, and patient evaluations were analyzed for days 1 to 15 and 16 to 29. RESULTS: The mean reduction from baseline in physician-evaluated total nasal symptom scores at day 8 (the primary efficacy variable) was significantly greater in the MFNS and beclomethasone dipropionate groups than in the placebo group (P 相似文献   

Relief of cough and nasal symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis by mometasone furoate nasal spray.

BACKGROUND: Cough commonly occurs as a symptom of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), an inflammatory condition of the nasal mucous membranes that results in rhinorrhea, nasal stuffiness/congestion, nasal itching, and sneezing. Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS, Nasonex, Schering, Kenilworth, NJ), an anti-inflammatory nasal corticosteroid, has been shown to be safe and effective in reducing the nasal inflammation of SAR. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of MFNS in relieving SAR-associated cough, in addition to nasal symptoms. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Patients 12 years of age or older with > or = 1-year history of SAR symptoms, positive skin test to a prevailing seasonal allergen, moderate nasal symptoms, and moderate cough were treated for 14 days with MFNS 200 microg daily (n = 122) or placebo (n = 123). RESULTS: The group treated with MFNS showed significant improvement in the daytime cough severity score at endpoint compared with placebo (P = 0.049). Improvement in the nighttime cough severity score showed a trend in favor of MFNS treatment. Treatment with MFNS significantly improved total nasal symptoms in both the daytime and nighttime compared with placebo at endpoint (P < or = 0.017). Overall daytime symptom scores (cough + total nasal) improved significantly compared with placebo at endpoint (P = 0.005). Overall nighttime symptom scores improved significantly compared with placebo at endpoint (P = 0.028). Treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: MFNS is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of daytime cough associated with SAR.     

Efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone propionate nasal drops 400 μg once daily compared with placebo for the treatment of bilateral polyposis in adults

BACKGROUND: Chronic eosinophilic rhinosinusitis underlies a range of respiratory disorders including nasal polyposis. Surgical and medical methods are used to control polyps, with topical steroids commonly being used for their anti-inflammatory properties. Fluticasone propionate nasal drops (FPND) is a formulation developed specifically for an effective and well tolerated corticosteroid treatment of nasal polyposis. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and tolerability of FPND in the treatment of bilateral nasal polyposis in adults. METHODS: This multicentre, randomized, parallel-group study compared FPND 400 microgram once daily (o.d.) with placebo for 12 weeks in adult patients with mild to moderate bilateral polyposis. The primary efficacy endpoint was visual assessment of polyp size by the physician at monthly clinic visits. Nasal blockage, rhinitis, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), olfactory function and requirement for polypectomy were also assessed at visits. The patients kept diary card records of symptoms, PNIF, and use of rescue antihistamine. Additional safety data were provided by a 12-week open extension, when all patients received FPND 400 microgram o.d. RESULTS: After 12 weeks double-blind treatment with FPND (n = 52) or placebo (n = 52), polyp size was reduced in 27% and 16% of patients, respectively; clinical reduction of nasal blockage significantly favoured FPND over placebo (55% vs 22%; P = 0.002), and clinic PNIF had increased significantly with FPND (by 52 L/min vs -3 L/min for placebo; P < 0.001). Diary card measurements showed significant benefits of FPND vs placebo for daily PNIF, nasal blockage, rhinitis and use of loratadine rescue medication. Both treatments were well tolerated and no serious adverse events occurred during randomized treatment. Epistaxis was more frequent with FPND than placebo but was generally mild and did not result in withdrawals. Mean serum cortisol levels did not change significantly with either treatment. CONCLUSION: This study showed FPND 400 microgram o.d. to be an effective and well tolerated treatment for bilateral nasal polyposis in adults.     

Effect of loteprednol etabonate nasal spray suspension on seasonal allergic rhinitis assessed by allergen challenge in an environmental exposure unit

BACKGROUND: Loteprednol etabonate (LE) is a novel soft steroid that was designed to improve the benefit/risk ratio of topical corticosteroid therapy. This study assesses the clinical efficacy and safety of three different doses of LE nasal spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: In this single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial 165 subjects with SAR to grass pollen received daily single doses of either 100, 200, 400 microg LE nasal spray, or placebo for 14 days. The patients underwent three 4-h allergen challenges with grass pollen in an environmental exposure unit at a screening visit (baseline) and on days 7 and 14 of treatment. Standardized nasal symptom scores were obtained every 20 min. Nasal flow, nasal secretions, and FEV(1) were measured every hour during allergen challenges. RESULTS: After 14 days of treatment, patients who received 400 microg LE had significantly lower total nasal symptom scores compared with those receiving placebo (P = 0.007). LE400 reduced rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, the amount of nasal secretions, and improved nasal flow as compared with placebo (P < 0.05). LE100 and LE200 were not significantly different from placebo. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Loteprednol 400 microg once daily is superior to placebo and the only effective dose tested in improving nasal symptoms and objective parameters in patients with SAR.     

Onset of action of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NASONEX) in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS, NASONEX ), is a new synthetic corticosteroid with considerable efficacy in the treatment of seasonal and perennial rhinitis and less than 0.1% systemic absorption. This study was designed to evaluate the time of onset of action of MFNS. The subjects were evaluated over the course of 2 weeks during the spring allergy season. METHODS: The effects of MFNS 200 microg given once daily for 2 weeks were evaluated in a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 201 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Clinically significant onset of action was assessed prospectively by special patient diary cards kept during the first 3 days of treatment. RESULTS: By 12 h after initial dosage (the earliest evaluation), 28% of patients in the MFNS group experienced clinically significant relief, compared with 13% of those given placebo (P = 0.01). Median time to at least moderate symptom relief in patients who received MFNS was 35.9 h, compared with more than 72 h in patients given placebo (P<0.01). By 72 h, 64% of the patients receiving MFNS experienced at least moderate relief, compared with 40% of those treated with placebo (P<0.01). Both patient and physician ratings of symptom severity, response to treatment, and overall condition of rhinitis indicated significant (P<0.01) superiority of MFNS over placebo. MFNS was well tolerated, with adverse events comparable to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: MFNS provided rapid onset of clinically significant symptom relief in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

Long-term study of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray in acute and maintenance therapy of nasal polyposis

Background: Topical steroids are first‐line medication to control nasal polyposis (NP), a disease with long‐term clinical course. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) 200 μg twice a day (bd) after 1 month of treatment, and to compare FPANS 200 μg bd and FPANS 200 μg once a day (od) in maintenance and long‐term treatment. Methods: Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, 8‐month study with three treatment periods (1‐month acute period followed with 1‐month maintenance period and 6‐month follow‐up period) was carried out. Group 1 received FPANS 200 μg bd, during acute, maintenance and follow‐up periods, Group 2 received FPANS 200 μg bd during acute period and FPANS 200 μg od during maintenance and follow‐up periods, and Group 3 received placebo during acute and maintenance periods and FPANS 200 μg bd during follow‐up period. Endpoints were change from baseline in clinic peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), domiciliary evening PNIF, intensity of symptoms and polyposis grade. Results: After acute period and maintenance periods, FPANS 200 μg bd was significantly more effective than placebo on all endpoints and more effective than FPANS 200 μg od after 1‐month maintenance period on clinic PNIF, evening PNIF, obstruction, percentage of days with no sense of smell and percentage of nights with no disturbances. The two doses were similar on other endpoints. After the 6‐month follow‐up period, there was no difference between the two doses of FPANS at all efficacy endpoints. The safety profile of FPANS did not highlight any new or unanticipated adverse events. Conclusion: The study demonstrated the efficacy of FPANS 200 μg bd in acute treatment and FPANS 200 μg od as a sufficient dose to maintain a long‐term efficacy in the treatment for NP.     

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray provided significantly greater improvement in daytime and nighttime nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with montelukast.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis is well documented in the literature. Additionally, an expert panel has concluded that intranasal corticosteroids are the first line of therapy when obstruction is a major component of rhinitis. Montelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist recently approved for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of a 15-day course of intranasal fluticasone propionate 200 microg, once daily (FP200QD), to oral montelukast 10 mg, once daily (MON10QD), in relieving daytime and nighttime nasal symptoms associated with SAR. METHODS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population consisted of 705 eligible males and females (> or = 15 years) with SAR randomized to either FP200QD (N = 353) or MON10QD (N = 352). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in subject-rated daytime total nasal symptom scores (the sum of four individual scores: nasal congestion, itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing), evaluated via visual analog scales, and averaged over weeks 1 to 2. Secondary endpoints included the four daytime individual nasal symptom scores, the nighttime total, and individual nasal symptom scores (each evaluated on a four-point scale from 0 to 3). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences favoring FP200QD over MON10QD were observed for the mean change from baseline in daytime total nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), daytime individual nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), nighttime total (P < 0.001), and all individual nasal symptom scores (P < or = 0.002) over the 15-day treatment period. FP200QD and MON10QD were both well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this well controlled study demonstrated that FP200QD was consistently superior to MON10QD with regard to every efficacy endpoint evaluated, including daytime and nighttime nasal congestion, in subjects with SAR.     

Comparison of the effects of fluticasone propionate, aqueous nasal spray and levocabastine on inflammatory cells in nasal lavage and clinical activity during the pollen season in seasonal rhinitics

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for allergic rhinitis include antihistamines, decongestants, anticholinergics, cromolyn sodium and corticosteroids. As the nose is a small organ, comprising less than 1% of total body mass and surface area, it seems logical to confine treatment of rhinitis to the diseased organ. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapy with intranasal fluticasone propionate (FP), both on subjective symptoms and pathophysiological mechanisms, in rhinitis patients during pollen season when the patients were symptomatic. METHODS: We used a double-blind, placebo (PLA)-controlled, randomized, double dummy, parallel group study of the effect of 6 weeks treatment. The double-blind comparison was made between the following three treatments: FP aqueous nasal spray, 200 microg taken once daily, levocabastine (LEV) nasal spray, 200 microg taken twice daily and PLA nasal spray. Clinical evaluation and the levels of cells and mediators in nasal washing were performed before and after treatments. Twenty-four patients (11 men and 13 women, aged 17-50 years, mean age 30.1 +/- 8.5) with strictly seasonal allergic rhinitis to Parietaria entered the study. Clinical evaluation and the levels of inflammatory cells (eosinophils and activated eosinophils, i.e. EG2+) and their mediators (tryptase, eosinophil cationic protein, eosinophil protein X and neutrophil myeloperoxidase) in nasal-lavage were performed before and after treatments. RESULTS: Treatment with FP significantly increased, with respect to placebo, the percentage of days without sneezing (P < 0. 001), nasal blockage (P < 0.001), rhinorrhea (P < 0.001), nasal itching (P < 0.001). Furthermore, treatment with FP showed additional benefits with respect to LEV. The percentage of days without nasal blockage was significantly higher in the FP group that in the placebo group (P = 0.018). The same applied to rhinorrhea (P = 0.009). The percentages of days without sneezing and itching were instead not significantly different between the two groups. As expected, no significant differences were observed in baseline medians of the rhinitis symptom scores as well as in mean values of all mediators and eosinophils in nasal lavages of the various groups under study. After treatment the mean of subjective symptoms as well as all values in nasal lavage level fell significantly only in the FP group, whereas no significant changes were observed either in LEV or PLA groups. Accordingly, significant differences were observed at the end of the treatments between the values of fluticasone group vs LEV and PLA group values. Significant correlations between these values and symptom scores were found, according with literature data suggesting a pathogenetic role for these mediators and eosinophils in rhinitis. CONCLUSION: FP (200 microg once daily) affords a significant degree of improvement in rhinitis control during pollen season, as measured by subjective and objective parameters, compared with LEV (200 microg twice daily) and PLA. The therapeutic benefits of intranasal FP are reflected in, and may be caused by, the decrease in nasal inflammatory cells.     

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Ciclesonide is an intranasal corticosteroid approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefits of intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, for the treatment of perennial AR (PAR). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults and adolescents with at least a 2-year history of PAR received intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg, or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. Patient-evaluated total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs), physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity scores, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were evaluated. RESULTS: Patient baseline characteristics were similar in the ciclesonide (n = 238) and placebo (n = 233) groups and were consistent with moderate PAR severity. Ciclesonide therapy significantly reduced average morning and evening reflective TNSSs compared with placebo (P < .001) and significantly reduced average morning and evening instantaneous TNSSs (P = .001) over 6 weeks of treatment. At the end point, a greater decrease from baseline was observed in physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity for the ciclesonide group compared with the placebo group (P = .051). An appreciable improvement in combined Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores at the end point was also observed in the ciclesonide group (P = .01 vs placebo). The frequency of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, intranasal ciclesonide treatment was associated with significant reductions in nasal symptoms and appreciable improvements in health-related quality of life in adult and adolescent patients with PAR. Ciclesonide was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo.     

Effect of once-daily fluticasone furoate nasal spray on nasal symptoms in adults and adolescents with perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Fluticasone furoate is a novel enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of intranasal fluticasone furoate with those of vehicle placebo nasal spray in adult and adolescent patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). METHODS: After screening (7-14 days), patients 12 years and older with confirmed PAR were randomized to receive fluticasone furoate, 110 microg once daily, or placebo once daily intranasally for 4 weeks in this double-blind, multicenter study. The primary end point was mean change from baseline during the entire treatment period in daily reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), recorded on diary cards by patients, using a 4-point categorical scale. RESULTS: The mean reduction from baseline during the treatment period in daily rTNSS was significantly greater in fluticasone furoate recipients than in placebo recipients (P = .005). This finding was supported by significantly greater mean reductions in morning rTNSS and evening rTNSS (P = .004 and P = .011, respectively). A significantly greater mean reduction in instantaneous morning predose TNSS with fluticasone furoate compared with placebo (P = .006) confirmed the efficacy of once-daily administration. Fluticasone furoate was also significantly more effective than placebo in overall response to therapy (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Fluticasone furoate nasal spray, 110 microg once daily, effectively relieved nasal symptoms of PAR in adults and adolescents 12 years and older.     

Randomized placebo-controlled trial comparing fluticasone aqueous nasal spray in mono-therapy, fluticasone plus cetirizine, fluticasone plus montelukast and cetirizine plus montelukast for seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are considered to be particularly effective in reducing nasal congestion and are therefore recommended as first-line treatment in allergic rhinitis patients with moderate to severe and/or persistent symptoms. OBJECTIVE: We compared the clinical efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) 200 microg given once daily, administered in mono-therapy or combined therapy with a H1 receptor antagonist (cetirizine, CTZ) or with a leukotriene antagonist (montelukast, MSK), and the combined therapy of CTZ plus MSK in the treatment of patients affected by allergic rhinitis to Parietaria during natural pollen exposure. In addition, we examined the effect of the treatment on eosinophil counts and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in nasal lavage performed at beginning of season, during season and at the end of the season. METHODS: One hundred patients aged 12-50 years (mean+/-SD 31.8+/-9.6) with a history of moderate to severe Parietaria pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis were selected. A randomized, double-blind, double dummy, placebo (PLA)-controlled, parallel-group study design was used. Patients were treated FPANS 200 microg once daily (n=20) or with FPANS 200 microg once daily, plus CTZ (10 mg) in the morning (n=20), or with FPANS 200 microg once daily, plus MSK (10 mg) in the evening (n=20) or with CTZ (10 mg) in the morning plus MSK in the evening (n=20) or matched PLA (n=20). Assessment of efficacy was based on scores of daily nasal symptoms and on eosinophil counts and ECP in nasal lavage. RESULTS: All treatments showed significant differences (P<0.001) compared with PLA in terms of total symptom, rhinorrhea, sneezing and nasal itching scores. Concerning nasal congestion on waking and daily only the groups treated with FPANS in mono-therapy or in combined therapy showed significant differences compared with PLA. Comparing the group treated with FPANS alone and the groups treated with FPANS plus CTZ, we found significant differences for total symptom score (P=0.04) and for nasal itching (P=0.003). The comparison between FPANS plus CTZ and FPANS plus MSK showed significant difference for nasal itching (P=0.003). Finally, there were significant differences between the group treated with FPANS and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK for total symptom score (P=0.009), for nasal congestion on waking (P<0.001) and nasal congestion daily (P<0.001). Also the comparisons between the group treated with FPANS plus CTZ and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK demonstrated significant differences (P<0.001) for total symptom, for nasal congestion on waking and for nasal congestion on daily, for rhinorrhea (P=0.04) and for nasal itching (P=0.003) scores. Concerning the comparison between the group treated with FPANS plus MSK and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK we found significant differences for total symptom score (P=0.005), for nasal congestion on waking (P<0.001) and for nasal congestion on daily (P<0.001). No other differences were observed between the groups. Concerning blood eosinophil counts, significant differences were found between the treatments with FPANS in mono-therapy or in combined therapy with PLA group during and at the end of the season (P=0.0003 and P<0.0001, respectively). Concerning eosinophils and ECP in nasal lavage, all treatments showed significant differences (P<0.001) compared with PLA. Besides, there were significant differences (P<0.001) between the groups treated with FPANS alone or in combined therapy and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK. CONCLUSION: The results of this comparative study demonstrate that FPANS is highly effective for treating patients affected by allergic rhinitis, with efficacy exceeding that of CTZ plus MSK in combined therapy. In addition, the regular combined therapy of FPANS plus CTZ or plus MSK would not seem to offer substantial advantage with respect to FPANS in mono-therapy in patients affected by seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray improves nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis when used as needed (prn).

BACKGROUND: Few published clinical trials document the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids used as needed for treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 4 weeks' treatment with fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray 200 microg used as needed (FP200PRN) in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 241 patients (> or = 12 years of age) with a positive skin test result to a relevant fall allergen and who were symptomatic at randomization. The primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in total nasal symptom score (TNSS; the sum of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal itching, each rated on a 4-point scale from 0 = none to 3 = severe). RESULTS: The mean percentage of days that patients used the study medications in the FP200PRN and placebo groups was 61.8% (SD = 30.4%) and 70.1% (SD = 28.3%), respectively. Patients treated with FP200PRN had a significantly greater reduction from baseline in TNSS compared with those treated with vehicle placebo (mean +/- SE = -2.02 +/- 0.18 vs -1.06 +/- 0.22, P < 0.001), representing a 91% greater improvement with FP200PRN than vehicle placebo. The FP200PRN group also had a significantly greater (P < 0.001) mean reduction in individual nasal symptoms of rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal itching, and nasal congestion compared with placebo. FP200PRN was well tolerated, with an incidence of adverse events comparable to vehicle placebo. CONCLUSIONS: FP200PRN in patients 12 years and older is effective for treatment of nasal symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis. It has a lower incidence of adverse events than typically associated with regular once-daily use.     

Comparison of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and oral montelukast for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids with that of leukotriene receptor antagonists for the treatment of daytime and nighttime symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: To compare fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, 200 microg daily, with oral montelukast, 10 mg daily, for the relief of SAR symptoms. METHODS: Patients with SAR 15 years or older were randomized to receive either fluticasone propionate (n = 367) or montelukast (n = 369) in this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change from baseline in daytime total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) (the sum of 4 daytime individual nasal symptom scores [INSSs] assessing nasal congestion, itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing), averaged across weeks 1 and 2. Secondary efficacy measures included the 4 daytime INSSs, nighttime TNSSs (the sum of 3 nighttime INSSs assessing congestion on awakening, difficulty going to sleep, and nighttime awakenings), and the 3 nighttime INSSs averaged across weeks 1 and 2. RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline in daytime TNSSs (P < .001), all daytime INSSs (P < .001), nighttime TNSSs (P < .001), and all nighttime INSSs (P < or = .02) showed significant differences favoring fluticasone propionate over montelukast across 2 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: Compared with montelukast, fluticasone propionate provided significantly greater improvement in daytime and nighttime SAR symptoms.     

Safety and efficacy of desloratadine 5 mg in asthma patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and nasal congestion.

BACKGROUND: Antihistamines relieve most seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms, with the exception of nasal congestion, which is often the most troublesome symptom for patients. A nonsedating antihistamine that significantly decreases nasal congestion and improves symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma would be a significant advance in therapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of desloratadine 5 mg in patients experiencing moderate SAR, nasal congestion, and symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma. METHODS: This 4-week, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind study evaluated desloratadine treatment (5 mg once daily) versus placebo in 331 subjects with SAR and mild seasonal allergic asthma. Subjects evaluated SAR and asthma symptoms twice daily, recording 12-hour reflective and instantaneous severity evaluation scores. The primary efficacy parameter was the difference from baseline in AM/PM reflective total symptom scores. Changes in individual SAR and asthma symptoms were also analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, desloratadine significantly reduced mean AM/PM reflective total symptom scores for SAR, beginning with the first dose (P < 0.001) and continuing throughout days 1 to 15 (-4.90 vs -2.98; P < 0.001) and days 1 to 29 (-5.47 vs -3.73; P < 0.001). Desloratadine significantly decreased AM/PM reflective total asthma symptom scores for days 1 to 15 (P = 0.023) and AM/PM reflective nasal congestion scores over days 1 to 15 and days 1 to 29 (P = 0.006 and P = 0.014, respectively). Desloratadine was safe and well tolerated; adverse events were similar to placebo overall. CONCLUSIONS: Desloratadine provided significant relief from the signs and symptoms of SAR, including nasal congestion. In this patient population, symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma also improved.     

Combination therapy with azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there are no published studies that evaluated the efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid, although anecdotal reports of the use of these agents in combination are common. OBJECTIVE: To determine if greater efficacy could be achieved with the intranasal antihistamine azelastine and the intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate used concurrently compared with the efficacy of each agent alone. METHODS: This randomized, 2-week, multicenter, double-blind trial was conducted during the Texas mountain cedar season. After a 5-day placebo lead-in period, 151 patients with moderate to severe nasal symptoms were randomized to treatment with the following: (1) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily; (2) fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily; or (3) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, plus fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of sneezing, itchy nose, runny nose, and nasal congestion. RESULTS: All 3 groups had statistically significant (P < .001) improvements from their baseline TNSS after 2 weeks of treatment. The TNSS improved 27.1% with fluticasone nasal spray, 24.8% with azelastine nasal spray, and 37.9% with the 2 agents in combination (P < .05 vs either agent alone). All 3 treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The significant improvement in the TNSS with combination therapy relative to the individual agents alone is in contrast to previously published studies that found no advantage with an oral antihistamine and an intranasal corticosteroid in combination. Azelastine nasal spray and fluticasone nasal spray in combination may provide a substantial therapeutic benefit for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with therapy with either agent alone.     

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray: a single treatment option for the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate (USAN-approved name) is a novel, enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid administered in a unique side-actuated device for the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate nasal spray, 110 microg, in patients aged 12 years or older with fall SAR. METHODS: Patients (n = 299) received fluticasone furoate or placebo for 2 weeks in this double-blind, parallel-group randomized study. Patients evaluated nasal and ocular symptoms using a 4-point categoric scale. Efficacy was assessed on the basis of the mean change from baseline in reflective and instantaneous total nasal symptom scores and reflective total ocular symptom scores. RESULTS: Fluticasone furoate produced significantly greater improvements than placebo in daily reflective total nasal symptom score (-1.473, P < .001; primary end point), morning predose instantaneous total nasal symptom score (-1.375, P < .001), daily reflective total ocular symptom score (-0.600, P = .004), and patient-rated overall response to therapy (P < .001). The onset of therapeutic effect occurred at 8 hours after initial administration. Fluticasone furoate was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Fluticasone furoate, 110 microg once daily, was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of nasal symptoms of SAR in patients aged 12 years and older. Treatment also produced significant improvements in ocular symptoms. Fluticasone furoate was fast acting, as indicated by an 8-hour onset of action, and provided 24-hour symptom control. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: New treatments for the bothersome symptoms of SAR are needed. One such treatment, fluticasone furoate nasal spray, provides effective relief of the symptom profile of SAR.