A placebo controlled study comparing the efficacy of intranasal azelastine and beclomethasone in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

This study compared a new intranasal anti-allergic drug, azelastine (0.56 mg bid) with intranasal beclomethasone (0.2 mg bid) and placebo in the treatment of symptoms associated with seasonal rhinitis. After administering placebo for 3–5 days as a run-in period, eligible patients were randomized to treatment for 2 weeks: 83 patients received azelastine, 83 beclomethasone and 77 placebo. Each of six symptoms was assessed daily using a four-point scale. Total symptom scores showed that azelastine-treated patients experienced a more rapid onset of overall symptom relief than beclomethasone-treated patients. This was significant on day 1 (P < 0.003) and continued until day 5. By the end of the 2-week study period, the beclomethasone-treated group showed greater improvement than both the azelastine and placebo groups (P = 0.002 andP = 0.0001, respectively). In contrast, visual analogue scales at this time showed no significant differences between the azelastine and beclomethasone treatment groups, with both groups demonstrating significant reductions in total symptom scores compared to placebo (P = 0.0004 andP = 0.0001, respectively). Differing sensitivities were found in the four-point scales reported by the patients and the investigators and the patients' visual analogue scales in the measurement of symptom severity. However, all three techniques confirmed that both azelastine nasal spray and beclomethasone nasal spray were effective treatments for seasonal rhinitis. While a greater improvement in overall symptoms was found for the beclamethasone-treated patients compared to azelastine-treated patients, diary card data confirmed the more immediate onset of symptom relief provided by azelastine. No serious adverse events were found in the present study and included no complaints of drowsiness.     

盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合布地奈德鼻喷剂治疗持续性变应性鼻炎疗效观察

目的 观察盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合布地奈德鼻喷剂治疗持续性变应性鼻炎的临床疗效.方法 随机将120例持续性变应性鼻炎患者分为A组、B组及C组各40例,A组给予盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合布地奈德鼻喷剂喷鼻,B组只给予盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂喷鼻,C组只给予布地奈德鼻喷雾剂喷鼻.疗程4周.比较3组患者治疗4周后临床疗效.结果 ①视觉模拟量表评分:4周后A组患者鼻部症状视觉模拟量表评分均较B组及C组低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);②鼻-结膜炎相关生活质量问卷评分:4周后3组患者鼻-结膜炎相关生活质量问卷评分均比治疗前有显著改善,而A组在睡眠、非鼻-结膜炎症状、鼻部症状及情感反应等4方面的评分与B组、C组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);③疗效:A组患者显效率50.00%及总有效率92.50%,分别与B组(30.00%,75.00%)及C组(27.50,77.50%)比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合布地奈德鼻喷剂治疗持续性变应性鼻炎可以迅速缓解鼻部症状,提高患者生活质量.     

Vasomotor rhinitis: clinical efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in comparison with placebo

The H(1) antagonist azelastine is used in nasal sprays for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, but its therapeutic efficacy in vasomotor rhinitis is unknown. We performed a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and tolerance of azelastine nasal spray in 89 adult patients with vasomotor rhinitis (confirmed by negative Phadiatop). Following a washout period, patients were treated for 15 days with one puff three times daily per nostril of azelastine (n = 44) or placebo (n = 45) nasal spray. Efficacy was evaluated by the reduction in symptomatology and by rhinoscopy. Intent-to-treat analysis revealed better results in the azelastine group for all assessed symptoms; the significance level was reached for nasal obstruction on day 15 (p = 0.042). Using per protocol analysis (in 85 patients complying with the protocol), the significance level was reached for nasal obstruction on day 15 (p = 0.017) and for the percentage of success in rhinorrhea (p = 0.023). In the azelastine group, rhinoscopy examination showed a significantly higher reduction in the inflammatory level and edema of the nasal mucosa (p = 0.03 and 0.02 for VAS on day 15 respectively, per protocol analysis). General efficacy assessment by the physician and the patient was in favor of azelastine (with significance levels <0.01). No drowsiness or serious adverse event was reported, and the frequency of mouth dryness and headaches was similar in the two treatment groups. The present study demonstrates the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of vasomotor rhinitis. The best achieved results were a decrease in nasal obstruction and mucosal edema. Further studies are required to investigate if this therapeutic benefit results from H(1) antagonism or from another, not well-characterized pharmacological action of azelastine.     

Clinical efficacy of an antiallergic drug on otitis media with effusion in association with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE: The effect of azelastine hydrochloride (AZ), an oral antiallergic drug, was evaluated in patients displaying otitis media with effusion (OME) accompanying allergic rhinitis. METHODS: A total of 53 patients diagnosed with OME accompanied by symptomatic perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive in an open fashion 2 mg of AZ in combination with 750 mg of S-carboxymethyl cysteine (SCMC) per day, or 750 mg of SCMC only (controls) for 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed according to the global improvement rating (GIR) of six nasal or four ear symptoms or signs. RESULTS: Patients treated with AZ and SCMC had superior improvements in their nasal symptom GIRs compared to controls overall across the 8 week trial, but not in their ear symptom GIRs. However, the clinical course of patients treated with AZ and SCMC tended to be better than that of patients treated with SCMC only, and the nasal and ear symptom GIRs were significantly correlated in the AZ-treated group. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that AZ may not provide direct efficacy on the ear symptoms in OME patients with allergic rhinitis, but that there might be a possibility of its indirect efficacy in the patients in part by relieving the allergic rhinitis.     

Comparison of antileukotrienes and antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of antileukotriene (anti-LT), antihistamine, and a combination of anti-LT and antihistamine on the symptoms and nasal resistance in allergic rhinitis patients. METHODS: We performed a placebo-controlled study, with 120 persistent, moderate to severe allergic rhinitis patients randomly selected to receive the different treatments for 4 weeks: no treatment, 10 mg of cetirizine once per day, 20 mg of zafirlukast once per day, 20 mg of cafirlukast twice per day, a combination of 20 mg of zafirlukast and 10 mg of cetirizine once per day, or a combination of 20 mg of zafirlukast twice per day and 10 mg cetirizine once per day. The nasal secretion nitric oxide (NO) concentration, nasal symptom score, and nasal resistance were measured before and after treatment. RESULTS: Total symptom scores improved in each treated group compared with the control group (p < 0.05). Nasal obstruction significantly improved in the anti-LT-treated groups (p < 0.05). High-dose anti-LT or the combination of low-dose anti-LT and antihistamine significantly improved allergy symptoms compared with no treatment, low-dose anti-LT, or antihistamine alone (p < 0.05). Furthermore, anti-LT decreased NO concentration in nasal secretions (p < 0.05), regardless of the dose administered. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that high-dose anti-LT alone or the combination of low-dose anti-LY and antihistamine can effectively treat allergic rhinitis.     

氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合孟鲁司特治疗成人持续性中-重度变应性鼻炎疗效观察

目的探讨氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合孟鲁司特治疗成人持续性中-重度变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法将99例患者按随机数字法分为A、B、C 3组,每组各33例。其中A组单纯给予氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂,每次每鼻孔1揿,每日早晚各1次;B组单纯给予孟鲁司特10 mg口服,每晚1次;C组为氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合孟鲁司特治疗,剂量、用法于A、B组相同。治疗4周后,比较各组临床症状总分及生活质量总分改善情况。结果 3组临床症状总分及生活质量总分与治疗前比较,均有改善（P〈0.05）;且C组临床症状总分及生活质量总分改善情况均高于A、B组,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合孟鲁司特治疗成人持续性中-重度变应性鼻炎有协同作用,较单独使用两药效果更好。     

复方盐酸伪麻黄碱缓释胶囊治疗季节性变应性鼻炎的临床研究

目的　观察复方盐酸伪麻黄碱缓释胶囊治疗季节性变应性鼻炎患者的临床疗效和安全性。方法　采用开放、多中心临床研究设计。患者每次口服 1粒复方盐酸伪麻黄碱缓释胶囊、每日 2次、间隔 12h ,连服 7d ,然后观察患者症状和体征的改善情况。结果　本研究最终有 370例患者可供疗效分析 ,371例患者可供安全性分析。与服药前相比 ,患者服药第 1～ 7天各临床症状 (包括鼻塞、流涕、鼻痒、打喷嚏、流泪、眼痒、耳 /腭痒 )及体征 (包括鼻甲、鼻黏膜情况和眼部充血 )评分的改善均有统计学意义 (P <0 0 0 1)。复方盐酸伪麻黄碱缓释胶囊治疗季节性变应性鼻炎症状和体征的显效率分别为 70 %和 6 8% ,总有效率分别为 89%和 80 %。在用药过程中共有 5 4例患者报告了 6 1例次不良反应 ,主要为轻、中度困倦和口干。未出现严重不良反应。结论　复方盐酸伪麻黄碱缓释胶囊可持续有效控制季节性变应性鼻炎患者的症状和体征 ,疗效较高 ,耐受性较好     

Comparison of once- versus twice-daily use of beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray in the treatment of allergic and non-allergic chronic rhinosinusitis

The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nasal aqueous beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), 400 micro g/day, given via a metered pump in a once-daily or twice-daily regimen following a double-blind, parallel group design over a 12-week period. Adult patients (n=112) with allergic or non-allergic chronic rhinosinusitis recorded their nasal and ocular symptoms for the 7-day run-in period and for the first 4 weeks of treatment. At baseline and after 4 weeks the airways' resistance via active anterior rhinomanometry and the volume and area section via acoustic rhinometry were measured. Morning serum cortisol was measured at baseline and at week 12. Adverse events were to be reported at each visit. Of the 112 randomised patients, three did not enter the ITT analysis and another 13 in total discontinued the treatment. Significant improvements over the baseline were reported in both groups for the primary variable sum of nasal scores (-53.7% in the once-daily group and -59.7 in the twice-daily group), as well as for each nasal and ocular symptoms, without differences between the groups. Because of a wider variability than expected, the 95% confidence interval (C.I.) for the difference between the least square means exceeded the pre-defined limit of +/-10% of the reference mean. Similar improvements in both groups were also reported for the nasal airway patency's parameters. The total number of drug-related adverse events was 26 in the once-daily group and 32 in the twice-daily group, with most of the events consisting of local effects at the site of application. No signs of adrenal suppression were observed, and serum morning cortisol values did not significantly change. The once-daily BDP dosing (400 micro g/day) therefore has a similar efficacy and safety profile as the same daily dose given in a twice-daily regimen.     

等离子射频消融术在鼻腔手术中的联合应用

目的:探讨在鼻腔手术中联合应用等离子射频消融术治疗下鼻甲肥大及变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法:91例伴下鼻甲肥大及变应性鼻炎的鼻中隔偏曲或鼻息肉患者,行鼻中隔成形术或鼻内镜下鼻息肉摘除加筛窦开放术后,其中62例行等离子射频消融术(消融组),29例未行等离子射频消融术(对照组)。术前及术后3个月应用视觉模拟评分表(VAS)评价鼻塞的主观感觉。根据1997年海口会议疗效评定标准判断变应性鼻炎的疗效。结果:消融组术前鼻塞VAS评分左、右侧分别为(89.5±8.7)%和(90.3±10.5)%,术后3个月分别为(26.2±8.7)%和(32.1±10.3)%,左、右侧分别与术前比较,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.01);32例变应性鼻炎患者,显效31例(96.9%),有效1例(3.1%)。对照组术前鼻塞VAS评分左、右侧分别为(90.5±8.0)%和(89.9±11.5)%,术后3个月分别为(39.2±8.9)和(48.1±8.1)%,左、右侧分别与术前比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.01);16例变应性鼻炎患者,显效4例(25.0%),有效10例(62.5%),无效2例(12.5%)。两组术后VAS评分差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:在鼻腔手术中联合应用等离子射频消融术治疗下鼻甲肥大及变应性鼻炎安全、有效。     

皮下免疫和舌下免疫治疗尘螨变应性鼻炎的疗效分析

目的 评价标准化尘螨变应原疫苗皮下免疫治疗(subcutaneous immunotherapy,SCIT)和舌下免疫治疗(sublingual immunotherapy,SLIT)对中-重度持续性变应性鼻炎(allergic rhinitis,AR)的临床效果.方法 98例中-重度持续性AR患者纳入本项开放性对照研究,分别采用SCIT和SLIT治疗方案.所有患者均对屋尘螨和粉尘螨过敏,完成2年的特异性免疫治疗.其中,SCIT组40例,年龄7～57岁,平均(x-±s,以下同)年龄为(19.0±2.7)岁;SLIT组58例,年龄6～ 50岁,平均年龄(17.7±3.2)岁.应用记分法和视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)进行鼻部症状评分.采用治疗前后对照,分别比较SCIT和SLIT两组患者治疗2年后鼻部症状评分的变化,并对两种治疗方法作一疗效比较.应用SAS 9.1.3软件对数据进行统计学分析.结果 免疫治疗2年后,SCIT组和SLIT组患者的喷嚏、流涕、鼻塞和鼻痒症状评分以及鼻部症状总评分(包括记分法和VAS)均明显下降,差异有统计学意义(Z值分别为-3.14、-3.76、-3.09、-3.48、-4.13;-3.63、-3.21、-2.48、-3.56、-3.98,P值均＜0.05).对两组患者治疗2年后的鼻部4个症状评分以及总评分(记分法)与治疗前相应各项评分(基线值)的差值进行比较,组间差异无统计学意义(Z值分别为-0.97、-0.67、-0.36、-0.04、-0.67,P值均＞0.05).然而,对两组患者免疫治疗前后鼻部症状VAS评分的差值进行比较,结果显示:治疗2年后SCIT组患者鼻塞VAS评分的下降更为显著,与SLIT组相比差异有统计学意义(t=-2.21,P=0.032);但两组其余鼻部症状以及症状整体改善程度相似,差异无统计学意义(t值分别为-0.57、-1.93、-1.73、-0.99,P值均＞0.05).结论 尘螨过敏的中-重度持续性AR患者采用SCIT或SLIT进行2年特异性免疫治疗均能获得良好效果.SCIT可能对鼻塞症状的改善尤为显著,但两种治疗方式的总体疗效未见明显差别.     

H1受体拮抗剂治疗常年变应性鼻炎的比较

目的观察常用第二代H1受体拮抗剂治疗常年变应性鼻炎的疗效和安全性。方法将符合纳入标准的105例患者随机分为咪唑斯汀、氯雷他定、西替利嗪3组,每组35例,予相应药物10mg／d,治疗时间均为28d。记录症状体征评分、患者自评变化及不良反应情况。结果3种药物均对过敏症状有明显的抑制效果。其中咪唑斯汀在1h与2周时疗效优于氯雷他定和西替利嗪,且在眼痒症状控制以及安全性上有优势。西替利嗪镇静效果强于其他2种药物。结论3种药物应用于常年变应性鼻炎均有较好的疗效,但咪唑斯汀在起效迅速性和安全性上有优势。临床应注意个体化治疗,并注意避免严重并发症的发生。     

卡介菌多糖核酸注射液对血管运动性鼻炎的疗效观察

目的:观察卡介菌多糖核酸注射液对血管运动性鼻炎的临床治疗效果和安全性.方法:60例临床拟诊为血管运动性鼻炎患者按随机单盲对照试验方法分为卡介菌多糖核酸组和对照组(2组各30例),卡介菌多糖核酸组给予卡介菌多糖核酸注射治疗,每次1.0 mg,每周2次,共2个月,必要时予氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂对症治疗.对照组单独给予氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂.每日2次,症状缓解后酌减.均随访至停药后6个月.观察并记录治疗后症状得分、药物评分及不良反应.结果:卡介菌多糖核酸注射治疗2个月刚结束时,卡介菌多糖核酸组症状得分及药物评分均明显低于对照组(P＜0.01).至6个月后末次随访时,卡介菌多糖核酸组较对照组症状得分稍低但差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),药物评分明显低于对照组(P＜0.01).卡介菌多糖核酸注射时不良反应仅1例诉有局部疼痛.结论:卡介菌多糖核酸是血管运动性鼻炎的一种安全有效的治疗方法.     

舌下免疫治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效分析

目的 评价标准化粉尘螨滴剂舌下免疫治疗(SLIT)中-重度持续性变应性鼻炎(AR)患者的临床效果。 方法 选择62例中-重度持续性AR患者,采用为期2年的SLIT治疗方案。所有患者变应原皮肤点刺试验粉尘螨和(或)屋尘螨皮肤指数≥3+。治疗前后对患者鼻部症状和小气道功能分别应用视觉模拟量表(VAS)和最大用力呼气流速-容量曲线(MEFV)进行评分测定,比较患者治疗前后鼻部症状和小气道功能的变化。 结果 SLIT治疗后AR患者喷嚏、流涕、鼻塞、鼻痒的VAS评分较治疗前均明显下降(P<0.01)。SLIT治疗后AR患者MEFV测定结果中最大呼气中期流量(MMEF),用力呼气25%、50%肺活量的瞬间流速(FEF25%、FEF50%)均较治疗前明显改善(P<0.01)。 结论 SLIT治疗中-重度持续性AR效果良好。     

季节性变应性鼻炎预防性治疗观察

目的 观察不同药物预防季节性变应性鼻炎(AR)的效果。 方法 将120例季节性AR患者随机分为布地奈德组、非索非那定组、孟鲁司特组和对照组,前三组(预防治疗组)在症状发作前2周应用不同的药物治疗,对照组不予任何处理。在用药前2周、用药后2周及4周对各症状、总症状以及鼻结膜炎生活质量评分(RQLQ)进行分析。 结果 用药2周及4周后,预防治疗组各项评分均低于对照组(P<0.05)。布地奈德组鼻部症状、总症状评分及RQLQ均低于其他两组;非索非那定组眼部症状评分低于其他两组;孟鲁司特组鼻塞症状评分低于非索非那定组。 结论 鼻用糖皮质激素对所有鼻部症状、总体症状及生活质量均有显著改善作用,可作为预防用药的首选。眼部症状明显的患者可选用第二代口服抗组胺药,同时伴有鼻塞较重的患者可联合白三烯受体拮抗剂进行预防治疗。     

变应性鼻炎患者眼部症状的临床特点分析

目的：探讨变应性鼻炎（AR）患者眼部症状的临床特点以及眼部症状对患者生活质量的影响。方法：采集AR患者病史及临床资料,从中抽取伴及不伴眼部症状的成年患者各100例,使用鼻结膜炎相关生活质量问卷进行生活质量评估。结果：共收集AR患者1 119例,伴眼部症状859例（有眼症组）,其中眼部症状轻度582例,中度234例,重度43例;余260例为无眼症组。眼部症状最常见的为眼痒,其余依次为流泪、充血及肿胀。有眼症组AR病史长于无眼症组（P〈0.05）。眼部与鼻部症状呈正相关性（P〈0.01）,有眼症组鼻部症状评分高于无眼症组（P〈0.01）,中重度AR患者眼部症状评分高于轻度AR患者（P〈0.01）。女性患者眼部症状的发生率以及评分高于男性（P〈0.05）。〈10岁的患儿眼部症状发生率以及评分较低,而≥50岁患者眼部症状发生率及评分有增高趋势。有眼症组及无眼症组在变应原的分布特点及数量上差异无统计学意义。有眼症组患者的生活质量在非鼻结膜炎症状、相关行为、眼部症状、情感反应4个维度以及总分方面评分高于无眼症组。结论：AR患者多伴有眼部症状,且眼部症状对生活质量有明显的影响,因此在AR的诊疗中,眼部症状的控制不容忽视。     

Efficacy and safety of levocabastine nasal spray for seasonal allergic rhinitis

This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of levocabastine nasal spray, a potent and selective H1-receptor antagonist, in the control of histamine-mediated symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Adults with > or = 2 year history of allergic rhinitis due to Mountain Cedar were randomized to treatment with levocabastine nasal spray (0.2 mg twice daily) or placebo for 28 days during the 1994-1995 Mountain Cedar allergy season. Patients assessed the severity of their rhinitis symptoms on a four-point scale twice daily. At the end of the trial, patients also performed a global evaluation of treatment efficacy on a five-point scale. Overall for the 4-week treatment period, levocabastine nasal spray significantly reduced major nasal (runny nose and sneezing) and primary rhinitis (runny nose, sneezing, and itchy/gritty eyes) symptoms compared with placebo on both repeated measures (p = 0.023; p = 0.01) and ANOVA (p = 0.003; p < 0.001) analyses. Global evaluations of treatment efficacy at the end of the trial significantly favored levocabastine over placebo (p = 0.002). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar for both treatment groups. In general, most adverse events were mild in intensity, with sinusitis (17% each group), headache (17% placebo, 14% levocabastine), and rhinitis (8% placebo, 2% levocabastine) most commonly reported. Levocabastine nasal spray 0.2 mg twice daily was significantly more effective than placebo in the relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and was well tolerated over the 28-day treatment period.     

Korean Modification of the Nasal Provocation Test With House Dust Mite Antigen Following the EAACI Guidelines

ObjectivesWe evaluated the usefulness of the standardized nasal provocation test (NPT) protocol recently published by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and compared the utility of several parameters for diagnosing allergic rhinitis (AR) caused by house dust mites (HDM). Subjective parameters were nasal and ocular symptoms measured using a visual analog scale (VAS), and objective parameters were peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), minimal cross-sectional area (MCA), and total nasal volume (TNV).MethodsBefore and after spraying Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (DP) allergen (1,000 AU/mL, 100 μL) into both nostrils of 13 patients with AR (AR group) and 22 patients with non-AR (NAR group), we used VAS scores to measure nasal symptoms (nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching) and ocular symptoms and assessed PNIF, MCA, and TNV.ResultsThe AR group had significantly worse symptoms than the NAR group 15 minutes after DP challenge (P<0.001). After 30 minutes, nasal obstruction and rhinorrhea remained worse in the AR group (P<0.001); a similar but less marked difference was seen for sneezing (P=0.012) and itching (P=0.039). Ocular symptoms, PNIF, MCA, and TNV differed between groups after both 15 and 30 minutes (P<0.05). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was higher for nasal obstruction (0.977), rhinorrhea (0.906), and TNV (0.979) than for sneezing (0.755), itching (0.673), and MCA (0.836).ConclusionNPT performed according to the EAACI guidelines could help diagnose AR caused by HDM. TNV and VAS changes in nasal obstruction and rhinorrhea had higher diagnostic accuracy than other parameters.     

A comparison of the efficacy and patient acceptability of budesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal sprays in patients with perennial rhinitis

This was an open, randomized, cross-over study comparing the efficacy and acceptability of aqueous nasal suspensions of budesonide, 200 μg b.i.d. and beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), 100 μg q.i.d., each given for 6 weeks to patients with perennial rhinitis and a history of allergy. Forty men and women aged 18-65 years with perennial rhinitis diagnosed at least 1 year previously, were recruited for study provided they had at least two of the following symptoms of rhinitis—blocked nose, runny nose, itching nose or sneezing. They were requested to record the presence or absence of nasal and ocular symptoms on a severity scale of 0-3 (none, mild, moderate, severe) in daily diary cards. The sum of the nasal scores was calculated to give the total nasal symptom score. Mean individual symptom scores and total symptom score were calculated for each treatment. Thirty-seven patients completed the study. The mean total nasal symptom score was significantly lower during budesonide (2.13) than during BDP (2.75), P= 0.001. There were significantly fewer reports of blocked nose (P= 0.004), runny nose (P= 0.0005) and sore eyes (p> = 0.047) during budesonide treatment compared with BDP. Four patients reported adverse events during budesonide treatment (two had nosebleeds and two nasal dryness) and three patients during BDP treatment (two had nasal dryness and one gastric discomfort). A significantly greater proportion of patients stated a preference for budesonide than for BDP on the basis of effect (P= 0.0001), side-effects (P= 0.01), and overall (P= 0.0001).     

不同手术方式对鼻咽癌放疗后慢性鼻-鼻窦炎症状控制的影响

目的　探讨不同手术方式对鼻咽癌放疗后慢性鼻-鼻窦炎（chronic rhinosinusitis,CRS）症状控制的影响。方法　68例鼻咽癌放疗后CRS患者被分成2组,分别行上颌窦自然口扩大（组1）以及上颌窦口扩大联合下鼻道开窗（组2）为特征的鼻内镜手术,分析这些患者治疗前、后视觉模拟量表（visual analogue scale,VAS）评分的特点及两组治疗后症状控制率的差异。结果　组2黏脓性鼻涕和面部胀痛症状控制率及VAS评分差异有统计学意义,前者优于后者。结论　以上颌窦自然口扩大联合下鼻道开窗术为主的综合治疗方案对于鼻咽癌放疗后CRS,上颌窦病变较重、黏脓性鼻涕和面部胀痛症状的VAS评分较高的患者控制较好。     

重组人表皮生长因子对鼻-鼻窦炎患者鼻内镜术后创面上皮化的影响

目的　探讨重组人表皮生长因子（recombinant human epidermal growth factor,rhEGF）对慢性鼻-鼻窦炎（CRS）患者鼻内镜术后创面上皮化的影响。方法　选择110例CRS行双侧鼻内镜手术患者,对照组（右侧鼻腔）行鼻腔冲洗以及类固醇激素喷鼻,实验组（左侧鼻腔）加用rhEGF喷鼻,在术后2周、4周、3个月、6个月鼻内镜检查评估鼻腔黏膜情况及主观症状的视觉模拟量表（visual analogue scale,VAS）评分,比较鼻腔黏膜情况、完全上皮化比例、主观症状的VAS评分。结果　术后2周实验组鼻腔黏膜情况优于对照组（P＜0.05）,但主观症状VAS评分无明显差异（P >0.05）;术后4周及3个月时实验组鼻腔黏膜情况、上皮化比例以及主观症状VAS评分均优于对照组（P＜0.05）;术后6个月时则无差异（P >0.05）。结论　CRS患者鼻内镜术后用rhEGF喷鼻,可缩短术后上皮化时间、改善鼻腔黏膜情况及患者主观症状,值得临床应用。