Literature DB >> 24169063

A patient preference and satisfaction study of ciclesonide nasal aerosol and mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

William E Berger1, Bruce Prenner, Ralph Turner, Eli O Meltzer.   

Abstract

Patients' preference and satisfaction with their nasal allergy medications may be influenced by their sensory attributes. This study evaluates patient preference and satisfaction with ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol (CIC-HFA) compared with mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (MFNS). Symptomatic subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) were randomized to CIC-HFA at 74 micrograms or MFNS at 200 micrograms q.d. in an open-label, two-period, crossover study. Subject preference was recorded as total preference score (TPS; average of 17 individual preference items) at the end of treatment period 2, and satisfaction was assessed with a 76-item, self-administered instrument at baseline and at the end of each 2-week treatment period. The primary assessments were TPS and regimen attributes composite satisfaction score composed of two of nine satisfaction subscales: sensory impact (including medication running out of the nose, medication running down the throat, and impact on smell and taste) and regimen management (comprised of issues relating to dosing and ability to remember to take medication). Two hundred ninety-four subjects completed the study. A total of 68.1% of subjects preferred CIC-HFA (p < 0.0001 versus MFNS), with a mean TPS of 68.3 versus 31.7 for the MFNS group. The regimen attributes composite satisfaction score significantly (p < 0.0001 for each treatment period) favored CIC-HFA versus MFNS at the end of treatment period 1 (85.5 vs 77.6) and treatment period 2 (83.0 versus 73.5), respectively. In this study, subjects reported higher preference for and satisfaction with CIC-HFA compared with MFNS, suggesting significant differences in patient perception of attributes in favor of CIC-HFA. Clinical trial registration URL and registration number: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01401465.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24169063     DOI: 10.2500/aap.2013.34.3705

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Allergy Asthma Proc        ISSN: 1088-5412            Impact factor:   2.587


  3 in total

1.  Perspectives on chronic urticaria/angioedema and its treatment.

Authors:  Joseph A Bellanti; Russell A Settiane
Journal:  Allergy Asthma Proc       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.587

2.  A patient preference study that evaluated fluticasone furoate and mometasone furoate nasal sprays for allergic rhinitis.

Authors:  Anahi Yanez; Alex Dimitroff; Peter Bremner; Chae-Seo Rhee; Graham Luscombe; Barbara A Prillaman; Neil Johnson
Journal:  Allergy Rhinol (Providence)       Date:  2016-01-01

3.  Turkish Guideline for Diagnosis and Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis (ART).

Authors:  Mustafa Cenk Ecevit; Müge Özcan; İlknur Haberal Can; Emel Çadallı Tatar; Serdar Özer; Erkan Esen; Doğan Atan; Sercan Göde; Çağdaş Elsürer; Aylin Eryılmaz; Berna Uslu Coşkun; Zahide Mine Yazıcı; Mehmet Emre Dinç; Fatih Özdoğan; Kıvanç Günhan; Nagihan Bilal; Arzu Yasemin Korkut; Fikret Kasapoğlu; Bilge Türk; Ela Araz Server; Özlem Önerci Çelebi; Tuğçe Şimşek; Rauf Oğuzhan Kum; Mustafa Kemal Adalı; Erdem Eren; Nesibe Gül Yüksel Aslıer; Tuba Bayındır; Aslı Çakır Çetin; Ayşe Enise Göker; Işıl Adadan Güvenç; Sabri Köseoğlu; Gül Soylu Özler; Ethem Şahin; Aslı Şahin Yılmaz; Ceren Güne; Gökçe Aksoy Yıldırım; Bülent Öca; Mehmet Durmuşoğlu; Yunus Kantekin; Süay Özmen; Gözde Orhan Kubat; Serap Köybaşı Şanal; Emine Elif Altuntaş; Adin Selçuk; Haşmet Yazıcı; Deniz Baklacı; Atılay Yaylacı; Deniz Hancı; Sedat Doğan; Vural Fidan; Kemal Uygur; Nesil Keleş; Cemal Cingi; Bülent Topuz; Salih Çanakçıoğlu; Metin Önerci
Journal:  Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-05
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.