Intranasal fluticasone propionate for chronic eosinophilic rhinitis in patients with aspirin-induced asthma

We performed a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study on the effect of fluticasone propionate (FP) treatment on chronic eosinophilic rhinosinusitis in 15 patients with aspirin-induced asthma (AIA). There were 10 women and five men aged 32–60 years; average: 45 years. After a 10-day run-in period, patients underwent two 4-week treatment courses (FP vs placebo), separated by a 2-week washout interval. Clinical activity of FP was evaluated by daily measurement of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and a scoring system of subjective symptoms. Nasal challenges with L-lysine aspirin, using active anterior rhinomanometry, were performed at the entry and on the last day of each treatment period. Weekly mean values of symptom scores were generally lower and PNIF measurements higher during treatment with FP than with placebo. This difference was statistically significant for most recorded parameters for the whole 4-week FP treatment. On average, the reactions evoked by aspirin nasal challenge were significantly shorter and milder after treatment with FP than with placebo. In 8/13 patients, FP completely prevented aspirin-precipitated nasal reaction, whereas protection after placebo was observed in only 2/12 subjects ( P =0.004). We conclude that intranasal FP is an effective therapy for chronic eosinophilic rhinitis in patients with AIA.     

Efficacy and onset of action of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray on nasal symptoms, eosinophil count, and mediator release after nasal allergen challenge in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

We studied the effect and onset of action of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) on mediator release and eosinophil accumulation in nasal secretions and on nasal symptoms of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis after nasal allergen challenge (NAC). At the end of the pollen season, 28 patients were randomized in a double-blind and crossover design to receive 7 days' treatment with FPANS (200 μg, once daily) and matching placebo. NACs were performed before and at 6 h and 1. 2. 3. and 7 days during treatment with FPANS or placebo. Nasal secretions were collected for a quantitative determination of mediators and eosinophil count before and 5 min after each challenge. Nasal symptoms were assessed by scales grading the severity of symptoms at the same time. Results showed that for mediator concentrations there was a significant decrease of leukotriene C4 (P<0.001) at 7 days after the first administration of FPANS as compared to placebo. Two days after FPANS. both eosinophil counts and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) concentrations were lower than those of placebo (eosinophils; f=0.032; ECP; F=0.038). The onset became even more important at day 7 (eosinophils; P=0.001; ECP; P=0.009) during the FPANS treatment period. For the subjective nasal symptoms, a significant reduction of symptom scores for nasal obstruction occurred also at day 3 (F=0.017) and for sneezing at day 7 (f=0.003). There was not yet any significant improvement of the objective nasal airway resistance after the different NACs during the study period. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that topical fluticasone propionate is effective in the treatment of mucosal inflammation induced by NAC. For optimal control of nasal symptoms induced by repeated maximal allergen challenges, a treatment period of more than 1 week is required.     

Once daily fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray controls symptoms of most patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray 200 μg once daily (FPANS 200 μg od) with FPANS 200 μg twice daily (bd) in patients whose seasonal rhinitis symptoms were not completely controlled with FPANS 200 μg od. A total of 549 patients initially received FPANS 200 μg od during the open-treatment phase of the study. After 2 weeks, 65% of patients had their symptoms well controlled by FPANS 200 μg od and continued with this treatment for a further 2 weeks. The remainder received either FPANS 200 μg od or FPANS 200 μg bd for a further 2 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated by the analysis of symptom-free days. In the uncontrolled group, there was a significant increase in the percentage of symptom-free days in the FPANS 200 μg bd group over the FPANS 200 μg od group for nasal blockage on waking (P<0.05) and nasal blockage during the day (P<0.05). Similar trends were observed for sneezing, rhinorrhoea, nasal itching, and eye symptoms. There was a significant increase in the percentage of days with a symptom score of less than 2 in the FPANS 200 μg bd group for nasal blockage during the day (P < 0.05). Adverse events were similar in nature and frequency in each treatment group. It is concluded that in the majority of patients symptoms of seasonal rhinitis are well controlled by FPANS 200 μg od. In the minority of patients whose symptoms are not adequately controlled by a once daily dose, FPANS 200 μg bd provides additional relief, particularly from nasal blockage.     

Retrospective study on fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray efficacy in patients with allergic rhinitis: evaluation of clinical and laboratory parameters

BACKGROUND: In allergic rhinitis, allergenic stimulation causes the release of various mediators that induce symptoms and the development of chronic inflammation, which, in turn, is caused by cells involved in the late phase of inflammation, such as eosinophils. The eosinophils also cause damage at the mucosal level through the secretion of eosinophil cationic protein and other preformed factors contained in their granules. The objective was to verify the efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis; in a retrospective study, we have evaluated mediators of inflammation, making correlations with the clinical symptoms score during and outside the pollen season. METHODS: Forty patients with allergic rhinitis and 15 normal controls were included in our study. Eosinophil cationic protein, eosinophil chemotactic activity, and blood and nasal lavage eosinophil count were evaluated as laboratory parameters. RESULTS: We found a significant increase in nasal lavage levels of eosinophil cationic protein in allergic patients, and this was strictly correlated with the clinical symptoms score. No differences were found in the eosinophil count of allergic patients and in the serum eosinophil cationic protein of patients sensitized to seasonal allergens in comparison with normal subjects. By contrast, an increase in serum eosinophil cationic protein level was found in patients sensitized to perennial allergens. After topical administration of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, a reduction in nasal lavage eosinophil cationic protein secretion was obtained with a reduction of eosinophil chemotactic activity at the local level. This reduction correlated with an improvement of clinical symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical improvement and reduction in nasal lavage eosinophil cationic protein and eosinophil chemotactic activity after administration of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray further confirms the role of this treatment in allergic rhinitis.     

A placebo-controlled study of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and beclomethasone dipropionate in perennial rhinitis: efficacy in allergic and non-allergic perennial rhinitis

Background: Fluticasone propionate is a new potent, topically active corticosteroid with ncgligahle oral bioavailability. Data on its comparative efficacy in perennial allergic and non-allergic rhinitis are limited. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) 200μg once or twice daily with beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray (BDP) 200μg twice daily and placebo in patients with allergic and nonallergic perennial rhinitis. Methods: The 12-week study had a multicenlre, double-blind, randomized, parallel group design. Efficacy was assessed from symptom scores recorded on daily diary cards. Results: FPANS 200μg once or twice daily was significantly better than placebo but not better than BDP in relieving the nasal symptoms of rhinitis. FPANS at either dose was equally effective in the treatment of allergic and non-allergic perennial rhinitis. There were few adverse events and no treatment-related abnormalities in laboratory measurements in either FPANS-treated group. Comparisons between treatment groups indicated that FPANS was as well tolerated as placebo and BDP at the doses studied. Conclusions: In the majority of patients FPANS 200μg once daily is as effective as BDP 200μg twice daily in the relief of perennial allergic rhinitis.     

The effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray on nasal mucosal inflammation in perennial allergic rhinitis

Mast cell degranulation, and the subsequent recruitment of infiltrating inflammatory cells, such as eosinophils, into the nasal mucosa has long been considered the most important model to explain allergic rhinitis. Several studies show a decrease in the number of eosinophils and possibly also mast cells during local corticosteroid treatment. Over the last decade, a new model to explain allergic inflammation has evolved. In this model, Langerhans'cells and T-cells play an important role. Langerhans'cells possess a high affinity receptor for IgE. In patients with allergic rhinitis, allergen provocation results in stimulation of T-cells by the IgE-positive Langerhans'cells. The T-cells produce a number of cytokines which stimulate IgE production as well as the inflammatory reaction. The number of T-cells is not usually influenced by corticosteroid treatment; however, the function of the T-cells, shown by the spectrum of cytokines produced, is clearly influenced. The cells that are most dramatically affected by local corticosteroid treatment are the Langerhans'cells, which completely disappear during treatment. This decrease suggests that there is a reduction in antigen presentation. The subsequent decrease in T-cell stimulation may result in a reduction of the reactions that are dependent on T-cell-derived mediators.     

The efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) contains fluticasone propionate, which is a new topically active glucocorticoid with approximately twice the potency of beclomethasone dipropionate. In this European multicentre study, 143 children with seasonal allergic rhinitis were recruited: 47 received FPANS 100 jag once a day (od), 46 received FPANS 200 μg od, and 50 patients received placebo od, for 4 weeks. Treatment efficacy was assessed using diary card nasal symptom scores for sneezing, rhinorrhoea, blockage and itching, and eye watering/irritation. Patients receiving FPANS 100 μg or FPANS 200 μg demonstrated statistically significant improvements in median nasal symptom scores in all the symptoms recorded, when compared with placebo. There were no statistically significant differences between the FPANS 100 μg and FPANS 200 μg groups in improvement in nasal symptom scores. There was no effect on eye watering/irritation symptoms which could be attributed to either FPANS 100 μg or FPANS 200 μg when compared with placebo. Use of rescue antihistamine medication was significantly reduced in the FPANS 100 μg group when compared with placebo. The adverse events profile was similar in all three treatment groups, and the events reported were generally mild and related to the patients' rhinitis.     

Prevention of pollen rhinitis symptoms: comparison of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and disodium cromoglycate aqueous nasal spray

Fluticasone propionate aqueous spray, a new intranasal corticosteroid preparation, and disodium eromoglyeate 2% aqueous nasal spray, an established preventive treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis, were compared in a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicentric study in France. A total of 218 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollen (verified by positive skin prick test) were preventively treated before the onset of the grass pollen season with either fluticasone propionate 200 μg once daily or disodium cromoglycate 5.2 mg four times daily. Half of these doses was given in each nostril. Treatment started before the onset of the pollen season in most patients (178/218). Diary cards, including symptoms of rhinitis and usage of nasal sprays, were filled in twice daily for 5 weeks.
Terfenadine in 60-mg tablets and eye-drops could be used as rescue medications. We treated 110 patients with fluticasone propionate and 108 patients with disodium cromoglycate. Patients treated with flutieasone propionate had significantly more days free of primary efficacy symptoms of sneezing ( P < 0.001) and nasal discharge during the day ( P = 0.002), as well as free of all the other nasal symptoms ( P < 0.0l), and significantly lower median scores ( P < 0.05) for all nasal symptoms except nasal discharge than patients treated with disodium cromoglycate. There was no difference in eye symptoms or in rescue medication use between the two groups. Compliance with the treatment was assessed. Eleven patients recorded incorrect use of both nasal sprays for over 25% of days, and 55 patients recorded incorrect use of four-times-daily spray only; no patient recorded incorrect use of morning spray only. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.     

Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis with fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray: review of comparator studies

Studies have been conducted in the USA comparing fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray 200 μg once daily with beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray 168 μg twice daily, oral terfenadine 60 mg twice daily, or oral astemizole 10 mg once daily given for 2 or 4 weeks during tree, grass or ragweed pollen seasons. All six were multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group studies. Eflicacy was evaluated by patient and clinician assessments of individual nasal symptoms and overall response to therapy. Fluticasone propionate was superior to beclomethasone dipropionate in one trial according to patient evaluations of symptoms, but response to fluticasone propionate and beclomethasone dipropionate was similar in the second study. Comparisons with antihistamines showed fluticasone propionate to have greater eflicacy. It was more eflective than terfenadine in both trials according to evaluations by clinicians and patients. Similar findings were observed in the first astemizole trial. The second astemizole study showed superiority of fluticasone propionate over astemizole in terms of patient and clinician evaluations of overall response to therapy and occasionally in terms of symptom evaluations. There were no significant adverse eflects, including eflects on plasma cortisol concentrations, noted in any of these comparator studies.     

Comparison of once daily fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray with once daily budesonide reservoir powder device in patients with perennial rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing the corticosteroids fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD) in both perennial and seasonal rhinitis have shown no consistent difference between treatments. However, the therapeutic outcomes may have been influenced by study design. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of FP aqueous nasal spray (ANS; 200 microg/day) with BUD reservoir powder device (RPD; 200 microg/day) on rhinitis symptoms, productivity loss and device preference in patients with perennial rhinitis. METHODS: After a 2-week run-in period, 440 patients were randomized to receive either FPANS, BUD RPD or matched placebo (ANS or RPD) for 8 weeks, followed by an open-label 4-week follow-up treatment with FPANS. Patients completed diary card visual analogue scores for nasal symptoms, and questionnaires on satisfaction with the treatment and preferred choice of device. RESULTS: During weeks 1-4, the visual analogue total nasal symptom scores (VATNS) in the FPANS group were significantly lower than scores in the BUD RPD group (mean difference = -17.8; 95% CI = -34.4, -1.3; P = 0.036). FPANS also significantly reduced the VATNS compared with the ANS placebo at all time-points assessed (P < or = 0.005). BUD RPD did not significantly differ from the RPD placebo at weeks 5-8 (P = 0.167), or the ANS placebo at any time-point (P < or = 0.151). Over the 8-week treatment period FPANS was significantly more effective than BUD RPD at reducing sneezing (mean difference = -4.4; 95% CI = -8.6, -0.3; P = 0.036) and nasal itching (mean difference = -5.3; 95% CI = -9.9, -0.8; P = 0.022), and was significantly superior to the ANS placebo for all symptoms assessed at weeks 1-4 and 1-8 (P < 0.016). At the same time-points BUD RPD was no better at alleviating nasal itching than the RPD placebo (P < or = 0.306), and compared with the ANS placebo, significantly reduced only one symptom; nasal blockage (P < or = 0.016). After 8 weeks of treatment, patients preferred the ANS device to the RPD (P < 0.001), and at 12 weeks a significantly greater number of patients were satisfied with FPANS treatment compared with BUD RPD (P = 0.0019) or the respective placebos (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: FPANS and BUD RPD are effective therapies with a good safety profile for the treatment of perennial rhinitis but, in this direct placebo-controlled comparison, FPANS was more efficacious than BUD RPD, and the patients preferred the ANS device to the RPD.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of treatment with fluticasone propionate and levocabastine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. FLNCO2 Italian Study Group

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) is a topically active glucocorticoid which has been successfully used for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Topical levocabastine is a highly selective H1 antagonist which has been proposed as an alternative treatment of SAR. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of two topical nasal treatments, FPANS and levocabastine, in the treatment of SAR. Additionally, the effect of treatments on nasal inflammation was examined during natural pollen exposure. A group of 288 adolescent and adult patients with at least a 2-year history of SAR to seasonal pollens participated in a multicenter, doubleblind, double-dummy, and placebo-controlled study. Patients were treated with either FPANS 200 microg, once daily (n = 97), or topical levocabastine, 200 microg, given twice daily (n = 96), or matched placebo (n = 95) for a period of 6 weeks, starting from the expected beginning of the pollen season. Clinically relevant pollens included Parietaria, olive, and grass. Assessment of efficacy was based on scores of daily nasal symptoms and on nasal cytology of nasal lavage. Nasal lavage was performed immediately before, during, and at the end of treatment in 39 patients. FPANS significantly increased the percentage of symptom-free days for nasal obstruction on waking and during the day, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching. FPANS provided a better control for night and day nasal obstruction (P<0.02 and P<0.01) and rhinorrhea (P<0.01) than levocabas tine. In addition, fewer patients treated with FPANS used rescue medication (P<0.025). The percentage of eosinophils in nasal lavage was reduced only during treatment with FPANS. The results of this study indicate that FPANS 200 microg, once daily, provides a better clinical effect than levocabastine 200 microg, twice daily, in patients with SAR. Unlike levocabastine, FPANS significantly attenuates nasal eosinophilia during pollen exposure, a feature which may explain its therapeutic efficacy.     

Effects of low doses of inhaled fluticasone propionate on inflammation and remodelling in persistent-mild asthma

In asthma a dysregulation of eosinophil apoptosis and an imbalance of metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) and tissue inhibitor metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) play an important role in airway inflammation and remodelling. We evaluated the effects of a low dose of inhaled fluticasone proprionate (FP) (100 microg bid by Diskus) for 4 weeks in 24 steroid naive patients with mild persistent asthma, symptomatic and with a sputum eosinophilia >or=3% on clinical outcomes and inflammatory markers such as the induced sputum eosinophils, the induced sputum apoptotic eosinophils, the levels of MMP-9 and TIMP-1 and their molar ratio in the induced sputum supernatants. After FP treatment forced expiratory volume (FEV1) and FEV1/forced vital capacity values, PEF (L/min), sputum apoptotic eosinophils, and MMP-9/TIMP-1 molar ratio in sputum supernatants of asthmatic subjects were significantly increased in comparison with baseline, while sputum eosinophils significantly decreased. Change (Delta) in FEV1 after treatment with FP negatively correlated with the Delta in sputum eosinophils, while the Delta in MMP-9 values positively correlated with Delta in TIMP-1 values. This study shows that the clinical improvement achieved by the use of low doses of FP in asthmatics is related, at least in part, to the resolution of eosinophilic inflammation and the downregulation of remodelling markers.     

Once daily fluticasone furoate nasal spray is effective in seasonal allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollen

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate is a new enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid with a unique combination of pharmacodynamic and physicochemical properties suitable for topical activity. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients [adults and adolescents >or=12 years of age with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR)] received once-daily (od) treatment for 2 weeks with either fluticasone furoate nasal spray 110 microg (n = 141) or placebo nasal spray (n = 144) administered in a unique, side-actuated device. Efficacy measures included total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total ocular symptom score (TOSS). Patients also reported their overall response to therapy and rated their quality of life using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). RESULTS: Fluticasone furoate significantly improved the mean change from baseline in daily reflective TNSS compared with placebo (treatment difference of -1.757; P < 0.001). Fluticasone furoate was also significantly more effective in improving the morning predose instantaneous TNSS (treatment difference of -1.898; P < 0.001) and daily reflective TOSS (treatment difference of -0.741; P = 0.001). A significant treatment effect was observed as early as day 1. Compared with placebo-treated patients, fluticasone furoate-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements in overall evaluation of response to therapy (P < 0.001), as well as in overall RQLQ score (P < 0.001). Fluticasone furoate was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Fluticasone furoate nasal spray 110 mug od was effective in improving the nasal symptoms of SAR. It also produced significant improvements in ocular symptoms.     

Influence of different dosage schedules of inhaled fluticasone propionate on peripheral blood cytokine concentrations in childhood asthma

BACKGROUND: Asthma is characterized by eosinophilic airways inflammation with elevated levels of IL-4, IL-5 and sICAM-1, and reduced levels of IL-10 and IFN-gamma. Inhaled corticosteroids powerfully reduce airways inflammation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if eosinophil counts, serum eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) and sICAM-1 levels, as well as serum and production of cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, IFN-gamma) by peripheral blood monocytes (PBMCs) are useful markers to monitor therapy with inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) in asthmatic children. METHODS: In a double-blind, 1-year study, 55 asthmatic children (aged 6-10 years) stopped inhaled corticosteroids for a mean period of 24 days and were randomized to receive either FP 200 microg/day (constant dose group), or a starting dose of FP 1000 microg/day with two monthly reductions to 500, 200 and 100 microg/day (stepdown group). Hyper-responsiveness, symptom scores and blood sampling were performed at 2-month intervals. RESULTS: Symptoms and hyper-responsiveness improved significantly in both treatment groups after reintroduction of FP. Eosinophil counts decreased significantly more during the first 2 months of FP in the stepdown group than in the constant dose group (P = 0.03). We found a trend towards a dose-dependent response in changes of eosinophil counts and serum ECP levels during treatment. Serum IL-4 and IL-5 levels were undetectable in the majority of children. No significant effect of the dose of FP on the release of IL-4, IL-5, IL-10 or IFN-gamma by Con A stimulated PBMCs was found. sICAM-1 levels did not significantly differ at any time point between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Serum ECP as well as peripheral blood eosinophils, cytokine production by PBMCs and sICAM-1 levels are insensitive markers in titrating and monitoring therapy with inhaled corticosteroids over a wide dose range in childhood asthma.     

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.     

Treatment with intranasal fluticasone propionate significantly improves ocular symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: If monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid can alleviate both nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis, treatment may be simplified and costs may be reduced. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of once-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) aqueous nasal spray 200 microg compared with vehicle placebo and oral loratadine (LOR) 10 mg in reducing ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: A total of 471 patients received vehicle placebo, LOR, or FP in this multi-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized study. Patients were > or =12 years old with a history of seasonal allergic rhinitis and a positive skin test for a relevant allergen. During the baseline and treatment periods, patients rated the severity of eye itching, tearing, and redness via visual analogue scales that ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (most severe symptoms). The three ocular ratings were added to derive the total ocular symptom score (TOSS). Patients with a TOSS > or =120 on at least 4 of the 7 days before the randomization visit were enrolled. The primary outcome was the difference between FP and vehicle placebo in the mean change from baseline in the reflective TOSS overall (averaged over the 28-day treatment period). A difference between FP and vehicle placebo of 25.5 was considered clinically significant. RESULTS: The overall mean change from baseline in the TOSS was significantly greater in the FP group compared with vehicle placebo (clinically significant difference of 28.8; P<0.001) and compared with LOR (difference of 16.2; P=0.028). Overall mean (SEM) changes were -59.9 (5.4) for the placebo group, -72.5 (5.4) for the LOR group, and -88.7 (5.3) for the FP group. The FP treatment group also showed significantly greater overall mean changes in ocular itching, tearing, and redness compared with vehicle placebo (P<0.001) and compared with LOR (P< or =0.045). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with intranasal FP had clinically and statistically significant decreases in ocular symptom scores compared with vehicle placebo. Data also suggest that FP reduced ocular symptoms more than or comparable with oral LOR. Patients experiencing ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis may benefit from monotherapy with intranasal FP.     

Low-dose inhaled fluticasone propionate versus oral zafirlukast in the treatment of persistent asthma

Background: Few studies have compared the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids and leukotriene modifiers for the treatment of persistent asthma. Objective: Our purpose was to compare the efficacy of a low dose of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) with that of oral zafirlukast in the treatment of persistent asthma previously treated with short-acting β₂-agonists alone. Methods: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study was conducted in 451 patients aged 12 years and older with asthma who were symptomatic on short-acting β₂-agonists alone. After an 8- to 14-day run-in period, patients were randomized to treatment with FP 88 μg twice daily or zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily. Results: Treatment with FP was more effective than treatment with zafirlukast in increasing morning FEV₁ (by 0.42 L vs 0.20 L over baseline, P < .001), morning peak expiratory flow (by 49.94 L/min vs 11.68 L/min over baseline, P < .001), and evening PEF (by 38.91 L/min vs 10.50 L/min over baseline, P < .001). Statistically significant differences between the two treatments in FEV₁ were noted after the first observation (week 4) and in morning and evening peak expiratory flow by week 2. Mean change in percentage of symptom-free days was greater with FP than with zafirlukast (28.5% of days vs 15.6% of days, P < .001) and FP significantly increased the percentage of rescue-free days by 40.4% of days compared with 24.2% of days with zafirlukast (P < .001). Treatment with FP significantly reduced albuterol use by 2.39 puffs per day compared with 1.45 puffs per day (P < .001) and increased the percentage of nights with no awakenings by 21.2% of nights compared with 8.0% of nights with zafirlukast (P < .001). Conclusion: The clinical effectiveness of a low dose of FP as first-line therapy in patients with persistent asthma who are symptomatic on β₂-agonists alone is superior to that of zafirlukast. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000;105:1123-9.)     

Effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray on allergen-induced inflammatory changes in the nasal airways of allergic rhinitics following exposure to nitrogen dioxide

BACKGROUND: The authors have recently demonstrated that prior exposure for 6 h to 400 p.p.b. nitrogen dioxide significantly enhances the early phase response of eosinophils in the nasal airways of allergic rhinitics to subsequent allergen provocation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether treatment with fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FP) can alter the inflammatory response in the nasal airways under these conditions. METHODS: Sixteen allergic, rhinitic patients were recruited for this double-blind, randomized, cross-over study and received either topical FP 200 microg once daily or matched placebo for 4 weeks. At the end of treatment, all underwent nasal lavage followed by a 6 h exposure to 400 p.p.b. NO2. Following exposure to NO2, nasal allergen challenge was performed and nasal lavage repeated. After a 4 week washout period, patients were given alternate treatment and tested as above. RESULTS: Analysis of eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in lavage samples from patients treated with placebo, demonstrated that this was significantly increased from a median value of 2.3 ng/mL (range: 1.0-7.1) to 15.1 ng/mL (range: 1.5-40.0; P = 0.001) following exposure to NO2 and allergen challenge. However, in patients treated with FP, ECP concentrations only increased from 3.3 ng/mL (range: 0.2-9.2) to 5.1 ng/mL (range: 0.3-20.0; P = 0.034) following exposure to NO2 and allergen challenge. The difference of the changes in ECP concentration between the placebo and the FP-treated group was significant (P = 0.003). Similarly, there was a significant increase in the number of eosinophils in nasal lavage after exposure to NO2 and allergen challenge in the placebo group, and this increase was inhibited in FP group (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that FP influences NO2- and allergen-induced changes in eosinophil function, as well as eosinophil number in the nasal airway of allergic rhinitics.     

Effect of montelukast compared with inhaled fluticasone on airway inflammation

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are currently regarded as the gold standard in anti-inflammatory therapy, however, leukotriene receptor antagonists have been ascribed anti-inflammatory properties. OBJECTIVE: We directly compared the anti-inflammatory effects of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP, 100 microg Diskus, twice daily) and oral montelukast (MON 10 mg, nocte) in bronchial biopsies of patients with asthma in a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group design. METHODS: Bronchial biopsies, serum and urine samples were collected from 36 atopic asthmatics before and after 8 weeks of treatment. Activated T cells (CD25+), eosinophils (MBP+) and mast cells (tryptase+) were analysed by immunohistochemistry. Serum eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) and IL-5 were analysed by radio and enzyme immunoassay (EIA), respectively. Urinary 9alpha-11beta-PGF2 and leukotriene E4 (LTE4) were measured by EIA. RESULTS: A comparison of changes from baseline [FP/MON ratio (95% confidence interval)] of activated T cells was not different when subjects were treated with FP compared to treatment with MON [1.00 (0.18-4.86); P=0.924]. Following treatment, mast cells in the FP group were significantly lower than in the group treated with MON [0.39 (0.16-0.97); P=0.041]. There was no difference in the number of eosinophils in the lamina propria following either treatment [0.54 (0.05-2.57); P=0.263]. However, treatment with FP resulted in a significantly greater decrease in serum ECP, compared to treatment with MON [0.37 (0.25-0.71); P=0.002]. CONCLUSIONS: FP appears to be superior to MON as an anti-inflammatory therapy in mild asthmatics.