Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 microg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Allergy Asthma Proc. 2009 May-Jun; 30(3):255-62.AA

Abstract

The efficacy of nasal antihistamines (NAHs) for allergic rhinitis (AR) is comparable with or better than second-generation oral antihistamines, with faster onset of action and greater effect on congestion. Limited data suggest that NAHs may be equivalent to intranasal corticosteroids at reducing the full range of nasal seasonal AR (SAR) symptoms, including congestion. The efficacy of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.) for symptoms of SAR was compared with fluticasone 50 microg nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril q.d.) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 2-week noninferiority trial. A total of 130 symptomatic patients were randomized to treatment and they recorded nasal and ocular allergy symptom scores b.i.d. (morning and evening) in a diary. Both treatments reduced reflective and instantaneous assessments of nasal and ocular symptoms from baseline throughout the 2-week study period (p < 0.05). The reflective total nasal symptom score (the primary efficacy variable) decreased by an average of -45.4% for patients treated with olopatadine 0.6% and by -47.4% for those treated with fluticasone; statistical significance favoring olopatadine was demonstrated at day 1. No significant between-treatment differences were determined for the average 2-week percent changes from baseline for congestion, runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and ocular symptoms, although olopatadine had a faster onset of action for reducing all symptoms. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Olopatadine and fluticasone nasal sprays both reduced nasal and ocular SAR symptoms with no significant between-treatment differences except for a faster and greater onset of action with olopatadine.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Institute for Allergy and Asthma, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20817, USA. makaliner@aol.comNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19549426

Citation

Kaliner, Michael A., et al. "Comparison of Olopatadine 0.6% Nasal Spray Versus Fluticasone Propionate 50 Microg in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis." Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, vol. 30, no. 3, 2009, pp. 255-62.
Kaliner MA, Storms W, Tilles S, et al. Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 microg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2009;30(3):255-62.
Kaliner, M. A., Storms, W., Tilles, S., Spector, S., Tan, R., LaForce, C., Lanier, B. Q., & Chipps, B. (2009). Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 microg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, 30(3), 255-62. https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2009.30.3232
Kaliner MA, et al. Comparison of Olopatadine 0.6% Nasal Spray Versus Fluticasone Propionate 50 Microg in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2009;30(3):255-62. PubMed PMID: 19549426.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 microg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. AU - Kaliner,Michael A, AU - Storms,William, AU - Tilles,Stephen, AU - Spector,Sheldon, AU - Tan,Ricardo, AU - LaForce,Craig, AU - Lanier,Bobby Q, AU - Chipps,Bradley, PY - 2009/6/25/entrez PY - 2009/6/25/pubmed PY - 2009/8/11/medline SP - 255 EP - 62 JF - Allergy and asthma proceedings JO - Allergy Asthma Proc VL - 30 IS - 3 N2 - The efficacy of nasal antihistamines (NAHs) for allergic rhinitis (AR) is comparable with or better than second-generation oral antihistamines, with faster onset of action and greater effect on congestion. Limited data suggest that NAHs may be equivalent to intranasal corticosteroids at reducing the full range of nasal seasonal AR (SAR) symptoms, including congestion. The efficacy of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.) for symptoms of SAR was compared with fluticasone 50 microg nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril q.d.) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 2-week noninferiority trial. A total of 130 symptomatic patients were randomized to treatment and they recorded nasal and ocular allergy symptom scores b.i.d. (morning and evening) in a diary. Both treatments reduced reflective and instantaneous assessments of nasal and ocular symptoms from baseline throughout the 2-week study period (p < 0.05). The reflective total nasal symptom score (the primary efficacy variable) decreased by an average of -45.4% for patients treated with olopatadine 0.6% and by -47.4% for those treated with fluticasone; statistical significance favoring olopatadine was demonstrated at day 1. No significant between-treatment differences were determined for the average 2-week percent changes from baseline for congestion, runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and ocular symptoms, although olopatadine had a faster onset of action for reducing all symptoms. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Olopatadine and fluticasone nasal sprays both reduced nasal and ocular SAR symptoms with no significant between-treatment differences except for a faster and greater onset of action with olopatadine. SN - 1088-5412 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19549426/Comparison_of_olopatadine_0_6_nasal_spray_versus_fluticasone_propionate_50_microg_in_the_treatment_of_seasonal_allergic_rhinitis_ L2 - https://www.ingentaconnect.com/openurl?genre=article&amp;issn=1088-5412&amp;volume=30&amp;issue=3&amp;spage=255&amp;aulast=Kaliner DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -