盐酸氮卓斯汀与曲安奈德治疗变应性鼻炎的临床观察

目的:比较盐酸氮卓斯汀与曲安奈德治疗变应性鼻炎的临床疗效和安全性。方法:96例变应性鼻炎患者按随机数字表法分为A组(55例)和B组(41例)。A组患者给予盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷雾剂,每鼻孔1喷,bid,于晨起和睡前给药;B组患者给予曲安奈德鼻喷雾剂,每鼻孔2喷,qd,于晨起给药。两组患者疗程均为4周。观察两组患者的临床疗效、治疗前后的症状与体征评分及不良反应发生情况。结果:两组患者总有效率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗前两组患者症状与体征评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后两组患者症状与体征评分均显著低于同组治疗前,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),但两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A组患者不良反应发生率为5.5%,B组患者为19.5%,A组显著低于B组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:盐酸氮卓斯汀与曲安奈德治疗变应性鼻炎均具有显著疗效,但盐酸氮卓斯汀安全性更好。

Clinical Observation of Azelastine Hydrochloride and Triamcinolone Acetonide in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVE ： To compare clinical efficacy and safety of azelastine hydrochloride and triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. METHODS： 96 patients with allergic rhinitis were randomly divided into group A （55 cases） and B （41 cases）. Group A was given Azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray, 1 spray per nostril, bid, at bedtime and in the morning; group B was given Triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray, 2 spray per nostril, qd, in the morning. Treatment course of 2 groups lasted for 4 weeks. Clinical efficacies of two groups, symptom and signs score and ADR before and after treatment were observed. RESULTS： There was no statistical significance in total effective rate between 2 groups （P〉0.05） ; there was no statistical significance irr symptom and signs score between 2 groups before treatment （P〉0.05）. The symptom and signs score of 2 groups after treatment were significantly lower than before; there was statistical significance （P〈0.05） ; there was no statistical significance between 2 groups （P〉0.05）. The incidence of ADR in group A was 5.5%, and that of group B was 19.5% ; that of group A was sig- nificantly lower than group B; there was statistical significance between 2 groups （P〈0.05）. CONCLUSIONS： Azelastine hydro- chloride and Triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray are effective for allergic rhinitis, but azelastine hydrochloride is safer.