Comparison of Outcomes Between Mometasone Furoate Intranasal Spray and Oral Montelukast in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis

Bhattachan, Sushma; Neupane, Yogesh; Pradhan, Bibhu; Thapa, Neeraj

doi:10.33314/jnhrc.v18i2.2509

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there remains consistent evidence that LTRA is inferior to INCS in terms of symptom reduction and QOL improvement 1894,1989,1990 . In a RCT by Chen et al, 1989 LTRA was inferior to INCS in improving acoustic rhinometry readings, concentrations of inflammatory mediators in nasal secretions, and the inflammatory cell composition (Th1, Th2, Treg) from turbinate brush cytology.…”

Section: Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis – 2023

Wise

Damask

Roland

et al. 2023

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence‐based findings and recommendation from the full document. Methods ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence‐based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work. Results ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost. Conclusion The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

show abstract

Section: Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, for fast relief of nasal congestion (1 h after dosing) a combination of loratadine‐pseudoephedrine was superior to intranasal fluticasone propionate 1488 . INCS are more effective than LTRAs 1892–1894 (Table XI.B.2.b.i.‐3).…”

Section: Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis – 2023

Wise

Damask

Roland

et al. 2023

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Montelukast as a potential treatment for COVID-19

McCarthy

2023

Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Ellis,

Cook,

Keith

et al. 2024

Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 “In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?” the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 “When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?” the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 “Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?” the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 “Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?” the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 “Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?” the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 “Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?” the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

show abstract

Comparison of Outcomes Between Mometasone Furoate Intranasal Spray and Oral Montelukast in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis – 2023

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis – 2023

Montelukast as a potential treatment for COVID-19

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About