Montelukast improves symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis over a 4-week treatment period

BACKGROUND: Proinflammatory mediators such as the cysteinyl leukotrienes are important in the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, given once daily in the morning for treatment of seasonal (fall) allergic rhinitis for 4 weeks. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind trial with a placebo run-in and a 4-week treatment period. Patients (n = 1079) with a history of allergic rhinitis and a positive skin test to seasonal pollen allergens were assigned to placebo, montelukast 10 mg, or loratadine 10 mg. Symptoms were assessed with a daily diary. RESULTS: Montelukast was more effective than placebo in improving scores for the primary endpoint of daytime nasal symptoms (P = 0.003) and the secondary endpoints of night-time, composite, and daytime eye symptoms, patient's and physician's global evaluations of allergic rhinitis, and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life (P 相似文献   

Montelukast for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial performed in the spring

BACKGROUND: Cysteinyl leukotrienes are important proinflammatory mediators believed to have a role in allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, for treating patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: After a 3- to 5-day, single-blind placebo run-in period, 1302 male and female patients (aged 15-81 years) with active allergic rhinitis symptoms were randomly assigned to receive montelukast 10 mg (n = 348), loratadine 10 mg (n = 602), or placebo (n = 352) administered once daily at bedtime for 2 weeks during the spring allergy season. RESULTS: Mean patient characteristics and symptom scores at baseline were similar for the three treatment groups. The primary end-point, daytime nasal symptoms score (mean of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, nasal pruritus, and sneezing scores; 0-3 scale), improved from baseline during treatment by (least squares mean, 95% confidence interval) - 0.37 (- 0.43, - 0.31), - 0.47 (- 0.52, - 0.43), and - 0.24 (- 0.29, - 0.18) in the montelukast, loratadine, and placebo groups, respectively (P < or = 0.001 comparing each active treatment with placebo). Mean changes from baseline in all other diary-based scores, including night-time and eye symptom scores, were significantly greater for each active treatment than for placebo. The rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life overall score improved significantly with montelukast and with loratadine as compared with placebo. Montelukast and loratadine showed a safety profile comparable to that of placebo. CONCLUSION: Montelukast is well tolerated and provides improvements in daytime and night-time symptoms, as well as quality of life parameters, for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

Concomitant montelukast and loratadine as treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Nasal challenge studies have suggested histamine and cysteinyl leukotrienes are important proinflammatory mediators in allergic rhinitis. This study was designed to determine the efficacy of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, administered alone or concomitantly with loratadine, an H(1)-receptor antagonist, in seasonal allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of concomitant use of montelukast and loratadine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: In this multicenter (N = 12) double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled 2-week trial, 460 men and women, aged 15 to 75 years, with spring seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomly allocated to receive 1 of the following 5 treatments: montelukast 10 or 20 mg, loratadine 10 mg, montelukast 10 mg with loratadine 10 mg, or placebo, once daily in the evening. The primary end point was daytime nasal symptoms score (average of congestion, rhinorrhea, itching, and sneezing). Other end points were eye symptoms, nighttime symptoms, individual daytime nasal symptoms, global evaluations (patient's and physician's), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life scores. RESULTS: Concomitant montelukast with loratadine improved the primary end point significantly (P <.001) compared with placebo and each agent alone. Compared with placebo, montelukast with loratadine also significantly improved eye symptoms, nighttime symptoms, individual daytime nasal symptoms, global evaluations, and quality of life. Montelukast alone and loratadine alone caused modest improvements in rhinitis end points. All treatments were similarly well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant montelukast with loratadine provided effective treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis and associated eye symptoms with a safety profile comparable with placebo.     

Efficacy and tolerability of montelukast alone or in combination with loratadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial performed in the fall.

BACKGROUND: Histamine and cysteinyl leukotrienes seem to be important mediators of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of montelukast, loratadine, and combination therapy with montelukast and loratadine for treating patients with fall seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: After a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 907 male and female patients aged 15 to 82 years were randomized to 1 of 4 treatments: montelukast 10 mg (n = 155), loratadine 10 mg (n = 301), combination montelukast 10 mg and loratadine 10 mg (n = 302), or placebo (n = 149), administered once daily at bedtime for 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the daytime nasal symptoms score (mean of congestion, rhinorrhea, pruritus, and sneezing). RESULTS: Mean symptom scores at baseline were similar for the four treatment groups. For each of the three active treatments, the difference was significant for the mean change from baseline compared with placebo (P < or = 0.001). However, the effect of montelukast/loratadine compared with loratadine alone, the primary comparison, was not significantly different. Differences for each therapy alone compared with placebo were also significant for most secondary endpoints, including nighttime symptom scores, eye symptoms scores, and rhinitis-specific quality of life. Differences for montelukast/loratadine compared with each therapy alone generally showed numerical superiority, and a few endpoints showed differences that were statistically significant. All active treatments showed a safety profile generally similar to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast alone or in combination with loratadine is well tolerated and provides clinical and quality-of-life benefits for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

Montelukast for treating fall allergic rhinitis: effect of pollen exposure in 3 studies.

BACKGROUND: Montelukast, a potent leukotriene receptor antagonist, is an effective therapy for symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, a disease governed by patients' individual sensitivity and exposure to relevant allergens. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship of montelukast treatment effect vs pollen exposure in studies conducted during 3 consecutive fall allergy seasons. METHOD: A combined analysis of these multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies was performed; 1 of the 3 studies is presented for the first time in this article. After a placebo run-in period, 1,862 symptomatic patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 10-mg montelukast tablet (n = 929) or placebo (n = 933) once daily for 2 weeks. Pollen exposure was summarized by mean daily weed pollen count. The interaction between treatment effect and pollen exposure was evaluated on the primary efficacy endpoint and daytime nasal symptom score, as rated by patients; also evaluated was the influence of the timing of the 2-week treatment period relative to the peak of the weed pollen season. RESULTS: Montelukast significantly improved daytime nasal symptoms score and individual scores of congestion, rhinorrhea, itching, and sneezing compared with placebo. There was a significant interaction (P < .043) between treatment effect and weed pollen exposure; a larger treatment effect was noted in patients exposed to higher pollen counts. An interaction between treatment effect and timing of treatment in relation to peak pollen season was suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast significantly improved daytime nasal symptoms score in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, and the effect was greater in patients exposed to higher pollen levels.     

Effect of montelukast on symptoms and exhaled nitric oxide levels in 7- to 14-year-old children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Cysteinyl leukotrienes have been found to exert potent inflammatory effects in the upper airways and play a fundamental role in the pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis. Previous studies have reported increased levels of exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) in patients with allergic rhinitis without asthma symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of treatment with montelukast on symptoms, eNO levels, and peripheral eosinophil counts of children with seasonal allergic rhinitis during pollen season. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study performed between April and June 2005 in 57 children aged 7 to 14 years with seasonal allergic rhinitis was performed. The study comprised a 1-week screening period, a 1-week run-in period, and a 2-week treatment period with once daily montelukast, 5 mg, or matching placebo. RESULTS: No significant difference at baseline was found in symptom scores, eNO levels, and blood eosinophil counts between the treatment and placebo groups. After 2 weeks of montelukast treatment, improvements from the baseline in the daytime nasal, composite, and daytime eye symptoms scores were significantly greater in the montelukast group compared with the placebo group (P < .001, P < .001, and P < .01, respectively). A significant decrease was also found in eosinophil counts (P < .001) in the montelukast group compared with the placebo group after treatment. Montelukast treatment did not produce a significant effect on eNO levels compared with placebo (P = .96). CONCLUSION: Montelukast treatment provided significant improvement in symptoms and peripheral eosinophil counts of school-age children with seasonal allergic rhinitis; however, it did not show a significant effect on eNO levels.     

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of montelukast for treating perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) is a persistent allergic inflammation of the upper respiratory tract due to year-round allergen exposure. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast for the treatment of PAR. METHODS: Protocol 265 was a 2-arm study performed during the winter. After a placebo run-in period, adults with perennial allergen sensitivity and active symptoms of PAR were randomized to receive 10 mg of montelukast (n=1002) or placebo (n=990) once daily during a 6-week, double-blind, active-treatment period. The primary end point was the daytime nasal symptoms score, defined as the average of scores for nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and sneezing rated daily by patients. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in PAR symptoms were seen in patients treated with montelukast. Their daytime nasal symptoms scores were reduced during treatment compared with those of the placebo group: the difference between treatments in least squares mean change from baseline was -0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to -0.04; P < .001). Montelukast treatment also improved global evaluations of allergic rhinitis by patients and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores: differences vs the placebo group were -0.15 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.04; P < .01) and -0.15 (95% CI, -0.24 to -0.06; P < .001), respectively. Other end points that showed statistically significant improvement with montelukast treatment were nighttime symptoms and each of the 4 nasal symptoms (congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching). The treatment effects of montelukast were stable and persistent during the entire 6 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: Montelukast provided statistically significant relief of PAR symptoms during 6 weeks of treatment.     

Comparison of a nasal glucocorticoid,antileukotriene, and a combination of antileukotriene and antihistamine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis requires active intervention for symptom relief. A combination of antileukotriene and antihistamine drugs has been suggested to provide additive treatment benefits for patients with allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated how such a combination treatment would affect symptoms and local mucosal eosinophilia in comparison with a nasal glucocorticoid. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized study 62 patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis received a nasal glucocorticoid (fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray [FPANS], 200 microg/d), an antileukotriene (montelukast, 10 mg/d), a combination of montelukast with an antihistamine (loratadine, 10 mg/d), or placebo throughout the season. Cromoglycate eyedrops and a limited amount of loratadine were allowed as rescue medication for severe symptoms. Patients recorded their symptoms for nasal blockage, itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing. Before and during the season, nasal biopsy specimens were obtained from patients for evaluation of local eosinophilic inflammation. RESULTS: During the peak season, both FPANS and combined montelukast-loratadine were significantly more effective than placebo and montelukast alone for daytime symptom prevention. For nighttime symptoms, FPANS was significantly more effective compared with all other treatments, whereas combined montelukast-loratadine and montelukast alone did not provide significant symptom prevention compared with placebo. The pollen-induced increase in the numbers of epithelial eosinophils was significantly lower for FPANS-treated patients compared with that seen in all other treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, intranasal glucocorticoids are more effective than an antileukotriene drug or combined antileukotriene-antihistamine for the reduction of pollen-induced nasal eosinophilic inflammation and for control of nasal symptoms.     

A comparison of topical budesonide and oral montelukast in seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis and asthma commonly coexist and are both mediated by similar inflammatory mechanisms. Leukotriene antagonists may therefore be an alternative to corticosteroid therapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare oral montelukast with inhaled plus intranasal budesonide in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A single-blind double-dummy placebo-controlled crossover study was performed comparing once daily 10 mg oral montelukast with 400 microg inhaled plus 200 microg intranasal budesonide in 12 patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma: mean (S.E.) age 34.0 years (2.7), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 91.2 (3.8)% predicted. Each treatment was for 2 weeks with a 1-week placebo run-in and washout. Measurements were made after each active treatment and placebo for: adenosine monophosphate bronchial challenge, exhaled and nasal nitric oxide. Patients also recorded their domiciliary peak expiratory flow, nasal peak inspiratory flow, asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the placebos for any measurement. For adenosine monophosphate PC20, geometric mean fold differences (95% confidence interval (CI) for difference) were 6.4 (2.2-18.6) for placebo vs. budesonide, 2.9 (1.0-8.4) for placebo vs. montelukast, and 2.1 (1.1-4.5) for budesonide vs. montelukast. For exhaled nitric oxide (p.p.b.) there was significant (P < 0.05) suppression with both montelukast (10.9) and budesonide (10.1) compared with placebo (18.8). For nasal nitric oxide and nasal peak flow there were only significant differences with budesonide compared with placebo. Both treatments reduced total seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms but only budesonide had a significant effect on nasal symptoms. CONCLUSION: Once-daily inhaled plus intranasal budesonide and once daily montelukast showed comparable efficacy on lower airway, but only the budesonide had significant efficacy on upper airway inflammatory markers. Both treatments significantly reduced allergic rhinitis symptoms.     

Efficacy of montelukast during the allergy season in patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Montelukast has proven efficacy in the treatment of chronic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis, but it has not been evaluated in the subpopulation of asthmatic patients with seasonal asthma symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of montelukast treatment in improving the control of asthma symptoms during the allergy season in patients with active asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity. METHODS: Adults with a history of chronic asthma who are also symptomatic during the allergy season and with skin test sensitivity to seasonal aeroallergens were enrolled in a randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study with a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period followed by 3 weeks of double-blind treatment during the spring of 2004. After the run-in period, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral montelukast (10 mg) or placebo. Daytime and nighttime asthma symptom scores, beta-agonist use, and morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates were recorded daily using an electronic diary. The primary end point was mean change from baseline to week 3 in the daytime asthma symptom score. RESULTS: Of 455 randomized patients, 433 completed the study. Compared with placebo, treatment with montelukast resulted in a significant improvement from baseline in the daytime asthma symptom score (-0.54 vs -0.34; P = .002) and in beta-agonist use, nighttime symptoms, and peak expiratory flow rates. Few patients in the montelukast and placebo groups discontinued study participation because of asthma (1.3% and 3.0%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity, montelukast treatment provided significant asthma control during the allergy season compared with placebo.     

Evaluation of treatment response in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis using domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow

BACKGROUND: Measurement of domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) may have a role in the objective assessment of treatment response in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: We wished to evaluate the relationship between domiciliary measurement of nasal PIFR and a variety of symptoms associated with rhinitis. METHODS: Thirty-eight nonasthmatic patients, mean age (SEM) 30 years (1.4), with symptomatic SAR were evaluated in a placebo-controlled, single-blind, double-dummy, three way parallel group study. Patients received oral cetirizine 10 mg once daily and were randomized to receive, in addition, either: (i) intranasal mometasone furoate 200 microgram (n = 14); (ii) oral montelukast 10 mg (n = 11); or (iii) placebo (n = 13). All treatments were given once daily for 4 weeks and were preceded by a 1 week placebo period. Domiciliary diary cards were used to record morning (am) and evening (pm) domiciliary nasal PIFR and symptom (nasal, eye, throat) scores and impact on daily activity. A total daily symptom score was then calculated from the sum of these separate symptom scores. RESULTS: Baseline values for symptom scores and PIFR after placebo run-in were not significantly different when comparing the three groups. After 4 weeks of active treatment, there were significant (P < 0.05) improvements in nasal symptoms, total daily symptoms and PIFR with all treatments, with there being no significant confounding effect of pollen count, when analysed as a covariate. There were significant (P < 0.01) correlations for nasal symptom scores vs PIFRam (r = - 0.51) and PIFRpm (r = - 0.56), and similarly for daily activity vs PIFRam (r = - 0.42) and PIFRpm (r = - 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that domiciliary measurements of nasal peak flow correlate significantly with symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and may therefore be a potentially useful objective short-term marker of treatment response.     

Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in patients with an unsatisfactory response to loratadine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of azelastine nasal spray, desloratadine, and the combination of azelastine nasal spray plus loratadine compared with placebo in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis who had an unsatisfactory response to loratadine. METHODS: This was a 2-week, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study in patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Following a 1-week, open-label lead-in period, during which the patients received loratadine 10 mg daily, those patients who met the symptom qualification criteria (<25% to 33% improvement taking loratadine) were randomized to treatment with azelastine nasal spray 2 sprays per nostril, twice daily, azelastine nasal spray 2 sprays per nostril, twice daily, plus loratadine 10 mg daily, desloratadine 5 mg daily plus placebo (saline) nasal spray, or placebo (saline) nasal spray/placebo capsules. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to day 14 in the total nasal symptom score, consisting of runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion symptom scores recorded twice daily (AM and PM) in patient diary cards. RESULTS: A total of 428 patients with an unsatisfactory response to loratadine completed the double-blind treatment period. After 2 weeks of treatment, azelastine nasal spray (P < 0.001), azelastine nasal spray plus loratadine (P < 0.001), and desloratadine (P = 0.039) significantly improved the total nasal symptom score compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Azelastine nasal spray is an effective treatment for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis who do not respond to loratadine and is an alternative to switching to another oral antihistamine or to using multiple antihistamines.     

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.     

Mizolastine provides effective symptom relief in patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study versus loratadine.

BACKGROUND: Mizolastine is a nonsedating H1 histamine receptor antagonist with additional antiallergic properties currently marketed in Europe for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and urticaria. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mizolastine in PAR compared with loratadine and placebo. METHODS: After a 1-week placebo run-in period, 428 adult PAR patients received placebo (146 of 428), mizolastine 10 mg (141 of 428), or loratadine 10 mg (141 of 428) once daily for 28 days. Symptoms were evaluated by patients and physicians using a total nasal score, evaluating itching, rhinorrhea, nasal blockade, and sneezing severity. RESULTS: Mizolastine treatment resulted in a significantly greater decrease in patient-rated total nasal score than placebo after 2 weeks (D14; -42%, P < 0.001) and at the end of the treatment period (-46%, P = 0.01), and significantly greater than that observed with loratadine at D14 (P = 0.031). No significant difference in change in total nasal score was observed between loratadine and placebo at 2- and 4-week visits. The global safety was satisfactory and the incidence of adverse events was similar in the three treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mizolastine provides effective symptom relief in PAR together with a satisfactory safety profile. Improvement with mizolastine was significantly greater than placebo throughout the study despite a large placebo effect. Also mizolastine's effects were greater those observed with loratadine after 2 weeks of treatment.     

Effects of topical corticosteroid and combined mediator blockade on domiciliary and laboratory measurements of nasal function in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Both domiciliary and laboratory measures of nasal function have been used to evaluate treatment response in allergic airways disease; however, these measures have not been compared. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship of domiciliary measures (daily symptoms, peak inspiratory nasal flow, and nasal oral index) and laboratory measures (rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry) in assessing treatment response with topical steroids and specific inflammatory mediator blockage. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma were enrolled into a single-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study comparing 2 weeks of 1) 400 microg inhaled plus 200 microg intranasal budesonide once daily and 2) 10 mg montelukast plus 10 mg cetirizine once daily. Before each treatment, patients received 7 to 10 days of placebo period. Laboratory measurements were made of nasal resistance by posterior rhinomanometry, and nasal volume between 0 and 5 cm by acoustic rhinometry after both placebo and active treatment periods. Daily domiciliary recordings were made of allergic rhinitis nasal symptoms scores and peak nasal and oral inspiratory flow rate (enabling the calculation of a nasal/oral index) throughout the study. RESULTS: There were significant (P < 0.05) improvements for all allergic rhinitis symptoms with both therapies, after factoring for pollen count. Spearman's rank correlation for comparison among nasal symptoms and the objective responses were: nasal inspiratory flow rate (R = -0.50, P = 0.02); nasal/oral index (R = -0.55 P = 0.01); rhinomanometry (R = 0.24, P = 0.30); and acoustic rhinometry (R = -0.21, P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were effective in managing allergic rhinitis symptoms, and patients' symptoms were more closely associated with domiciliary measurements of nasal flow than laboratory measurements of nasal function.     

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray compared with oral loratadine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis*

The effectiveness and safety of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (200 μg once daily for 4 weeks) were compared with those of loratadine (10 mg once daily for 4 weeks) in 114 adults and adolescents with seasonal allergic rhinitis in this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group study. Patients recorded their nasal symptoms (nighttime and daytime obstruction, sneezing, itching, rhinorrhea, and overall discomfort) using a 4-point scale (0=no symptoms, 3=very frequent symptoms) in daily diaries. Clinicians assessed patients' nasal symptoms (nighttime and daytime obstruction, sneezing, itching, and rhinorrhea) using a 4-point scale at every scheduled visit. Clinicians and patients assessed the overall effectiveness of treatment at the end of the study. Fluticasone propionate improved clinician-rated total nasal symptom scores (defined as the sum of five nasal symptoms) more than loratadine at the 2-week and 4-week assessments (P≥0.008). Clinicians gave fluticasone propionate better global ratings than loratadine (P=0.04). After 4 weeks of treatment, between-group differences in clinician-rated individual nasal symptoms favored fluticasone propionate (P<0.05), with the exception of nasal itching (P=0.11). These findings were confirmed by between-group differences in the percentages of symptom-free days calculated from patient-recorded daily diary-card data. Both treatments were well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events between groups was similar. Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray 200 μg administered once daily in the morning was more effective than loratadine 10 mg administered once daily for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

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.     

Triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray versus loratadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis: efficacy and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The new aqueous formulation of triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) was compared with loratadine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of TAA aqueous with loratadine in relieving the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: A total of 351 patients were enrolled into this 4-week, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel group study. Patients received either TAA aqueous nasal spray (220 microg) or loratadine (10 mg) once daily. Efficacy variables were rhinitis symptom changes from baseline, physician global evaluations, and the patient dropout rate due to insufficient treatment effect. Safety and quality of life also was evaluated. RESULTS: Both TAA aqueous-treated and loratadine-treated patients had improvement in symptoms as early as day 1. Overall, TAA aqueous was significantly (P < .05) more effective than loratadine in reducing total nasal symptoms and individual symptoms of nasal congestion, nasal itch, and sneezing. Ocular symptoms improved from baseline in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups based on physician global evaluation. A similar number of patients in each group discontinued the study due to ineffective treatment. Triamcinolone acetonide aqueous patients maintained a significantly (P < .05) better quality of life in three of the dimensions (activity, nasal symptoms, and practical problems) and for overall quality of life. There were no differences between the two treatment groups in the incidence of adverse events, none of which were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both TAA aqueous and loratadine were effective and well-tolerated in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Triamcinolone acetonide aqueous was significantly (P < .05) more effective than loratadine in controlling nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and maintaining a better quality of life for the patients.     

Comparison of the combinations of fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine and loratadine-montelukast in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Antihistamine-decongestant combinations are used routinely for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Recently, the combination of an antihistamine and a leukotriene receptor antagonist has been shown to be efficacious. OBJECTIVE: To compare the 2 combinations in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel study in which patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis received either fexofenadine, 60 mg, and pseudoephedrine, 120 mg, twice daily, or loratadine, 10 mg, and montelukast, 10 mg, once daily, for 2 weeks. The Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) was completed at the beginning and end of the study. Patients recorded nasal symptoms and measured nasal peak inspiratory flow (NPIF) twice daily. Baseline measurements were obtained before initiation of treatment. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, both treatments resulted in statistically and clinically meaningful reductions of overall and individual RQLQ domain scores (P < .01) except for the sleep domain, for which only loratadine-montelukast led to significant improvement. There was a significant reduction in total symptoms (P < or = .05) compared with baseline on most treatment days in patients receiving both combinations. When the change from baseline was analyzed, there were no statistically significant differences in total symptoms between fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine and loratadine-montelukast (median, -28.5 vs -22.5; P = .33). There was a significant improvement in NPIF from baseline on all treatment days in both groups (P < .05), with no significant difference between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine and loratadine-montelukast have comparable efficacy in improving symptoms, RQLQ scores, and nasal obstruction in seasonal allergic rhinitis. The lack of improvement in sleep in the fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine group is probably related to insomnia, a known adverse effect of pseudoephedrine.     

A comparison of once daily fexofenadine versus the combination of montelukast plus loratadine on domiciliary nasal peak flow and symptoms in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: The combination of montelukast (ML) and loratadine (LT) has previously been shown to be superior to either drug alone in managing seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), whilst fexofenadine (FEX) has been shown to be better than LT as monotherapy. OBJECTIVES: We wished to compare ML + LT vs. FEX alone for effects on daily measurements (am/pm) of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and symptoms. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with SAR (skin prick positive to grass pollen) were randomised into a single-blind, double-dummy placebo (PL)-controlled cross-over study during the grass pollen season, comparing 2 weeks of once daily treatment with (a) 120mg FEX or (b) 10mg ML + 10mg LT. There was a 7-10 day placebo run-in and washout prior to each randomised treatment. The average of am/pm PIF (the primary outcome variable) was analysed. Patients recorded their symptom scores (from 0 to 3) twice daily, for nasal blockage, discharge, itching and sneezing with; total eye symptoms, ocular cromoglycate use, and daily activity. The total nasal symptom score was calculated as a composite (out of 24). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between baselines after the run-in and washout placebos for any variables. There were significant (P < 0.05, Bonferroni) improvements in all symptoms and PIF compared to pooled placebo with both treatments for all end-points, but no differences between the two treatment regimes (as means and within-treatment 95% confidence intervals): PIF: PL 102 (98-107), FEX 111 (107-116), ML+LT 113 (109-118); total nasal symptoms: PL 7.4 (6.7-2.0), FEX 5.0 (4.3-5.7), ML + LT 4.0 (3.3-4.7). CONCLUSIONS: Once daily FEX as monotherapy was equally effective as the combination of once daily ML + LT in improving nasal peak flow and controlling symptoms in SAR. Further studies are indicated to assess whether ML confers additional benefits to FEX in SAR.