Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate Is More Effective Than Terfenadine Tablets for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Bavel, Julius van; Findlay, Steven R.; Hampel, Frank C.; Martin, Bruce G.; Ratner, Paul H.; Field, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420230086010

Cited by 57 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the possible flushing action of unmedicated spray on the nasal passages, there may be a beneficial effect of the vehicle placebo spray on nasal symptoms, and in turn on ocular symptoms, as secretions containing mediators and inflammatory cells are removed from the nose [20,27,28]. Similar to the findings of this study, other allergic rhinitis studies have shown non-sedating oral antihistamines to be no more effective than vehicle placebo aqueous nasal spray [20,29,30].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

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

Bernstein

Levy

Hampel

et al. 2004

Clin Experimental Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

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

Bernstein

Levy

Hampel

et al. 2004

Clin Experimental Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the USA, a similar study was conducted comparing FPANS (200JIg once daily) with terfenadine (60mg twice daily) and placebo in 230 patients with allergic rhinitis to Mountain Cedar. Results showed FPANS had superior efficacy over terfenadine for total nasal symptom scores (obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and itching) [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Recent studies have demonstrated that FPANS given as a once daily 200 J-Lg dose is an effective treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis [7][8][9][10][11]. Oral administration of a twice daily 60 mg dose of terfenadine, a commonly used H I-receptor antagonist, has been favourably compared with placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A double‐blind comparison of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, terfenadine tablets and placebo in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis to grass pollen

Darnell¹,

Pécoud²,

Richards³

1994

Clin Experimental Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluticasone Propionate Aqueous Nasal Spray (FPANS) contains a topically active glucocorticoid fluticasone propionate which has been used successfully for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel group study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of FPANS with terfenadine tablets or placebo in controlling the symptoms of allergic rhinitis to grass pollen. Two hundred and fourteen patients were treated for 6 weeks during the grass pollen season with either FPANS 200 micrograms once daily, terfenadine tablets (60 mg) twice daily or placebo. Efficacy was evaluated by the analysis of symptom-free days and median symptom scores. Patients receiving FPANS had significantly more days free of nasal blockage on waking (P = 0.012) and during the day (P = 0.01) and of rhinorrhoea (P = 0.027) than those receiving terfenadine. Additionally, in terms of absolute efficacy, patients receiving FPANS demonstrated significantly more days free of the above symptoms (P = 0.017, P = 0.028, P = 0.004, respectively) and of sneezing (P < 0.001) than those receiving placebo. There were no significant differences in symptoms of nasal itching, eye symptoms, of symptoms of drowsiness between the three treatment groups. Patients in the FPANS group had significantly lower median symptom scores for nasal blockage on waking (P < 0.001) and during the day (P < 0.018) than those in the terfenadine group and significantly lower scores for nasal blockage on waking (P < 0.001), sneezing (P < 0.013) and rhinorrhoea (P = 0.005) than those in the placebo group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

show abstract

“…Methods of concealing allocation to the treatment arms were identified and classified according to the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration9: A, adequate; B, allocation method unclear; and C, inadequate. Two studies were classified as A 13 19 and the remainder were classified as B.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intranasal corticosteroids versus oral H1 receptor antagonists in allergic rhinitis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Weiner

Abramson

Puy

1998

BMJ

488

274

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine whether intranasal corticosteroids are superior to oral H 1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Design Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing intranasal corticosteroids with oral antihistamines. Setting Randomised controlled trials conducted worldwide and published between 1966 and 1997. Subjects 2267 subjects with allergic rhinitis in 16 randomised controlled trials. Main outcome measures Nasal blockage, nasal discharge, sneezing, nasal itch, postnasal drip, nasal discomfort, total nasal symptoms, nasal resistance, and eye symptoms and global ratings. Outcomes measured on different scales were combined to determine pooled odds ratios (categorical outcomes) or standardised mean differences (continuous outcomes). Assessment of heterogeneity between studies, and subgroup analyses of eye symptoms, were undertaken. Results Intranasal corticosteroids produced significantly greater relief than oral antihistamines of nasal blockage (standardised mean difference − 0.63, 95% confidence interval − 0.73 to − 0.53), nasal discharge ( − 0.5, − 0.6 to − 0.4), sneezing ( − 0.49, − 0.59 to − 0.39), nasal itch ( − 0.38, − 0.49 to − 0.21), postnasal drip ( − 0.24, − 0.42 to − 0.06), and total nasal symptoms ( − 0.42, − 0.53 to − 0.32), and global ratings gave an odds ratio for deterioration of symptoms of 0.26 (0.08 to 0.8). There were no significant differences between treatments for nasal discomfort, nasal resistance, or eye symptoms. The effects on sneezing, total nasal symptoms, and eye symptoms were significantly heterogeneous between studies. Other combined outcomes were homogeneous between studies. Subgroup analysis of the outcome of eye symptoms suggested that the duration of assessment (averaged mean score over the study period versus mean score at end of study period) might have accounted for the heterogeneity. Conclusion The results of this systematic review, together with data on safety and cost effectiveness, support the use of intranasal corticosteroids over oral antihistamines as first line treatment for allergic rhinitis.

show abstract

Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate Is More Effective Than Terfenadine Tablets for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Abstract: Fluticasone aqueous nasal spray, a well-tolerated corticosteroid preparation that can be administered once daily, is more effective than terfenadine tablets or placebo in controlling symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Cited by 57 publications

References 22 publications

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

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

A double‐blind comparison of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, terfenadine tablets and placebo in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis to grass pollen

Intranasal corticosteroids versus oral H1 receptor antagonists in allergic rhinitis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About