BACKGROUND: Many nasal corticosteroids with different potencies and formulations are available, but they have all been proven safe and effective. The clinical relevance, if any, of these differences is not yet completely established. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy, safety, and patients' acceptance of triamcinolone acetonide aerosol spray and fluticasone propionate aqueous solution in the treatment of spring allergic rhinitis. METHODS: After a drug-free baseline evaluation, patients with rhinitis were randomized to receive either a triamcinolone aerosol spray of 110 microg in each nostril once daily (n = 117) or a fluticasone solution spray of 100 microg in each nostril once daily (n = 116) in a single-blind, parallel-group study. The Rhinitis Index Score (sum of scores of symptoms on a scale from 0 to 3) was evaluated daily, in the morning before drug administration, for 21 days. The efficacy of each treatment was assessed by the mean reduction from baseline in the Rhinitis Index Score and in individual symptom scores. Patients' acceptance of the study drugs was also monitored by a daily questionnaire. RESULTS: Reductions of the Rhinitis Index Score (mean +/- SEM) were 4.20 +/- 0.21 and 4.60 +/- 0.21 for triamcinolone and fluticasone, respectively (p = 0.23). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs in the reduction of any of the individual symptoms. Patients expressed statistically significant differences between the drugs regarding acceptance; different properties of the aerosol and the solution were appreciated differently. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that triamcinolone acetonide aerosol and fluticasone propionate solution sprays are both clinically equally effective, safe, and well tolerated for the treatment of spring pollen allergic rhinitis.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many nasal corticosteroids with different potencies and formulations are available, but they have all been proven safe and effective. The clinical relevance, if any, of these differences is not yet completely established. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy, safety, and patients' acceptance of triamcinolone acetonide aerosol spray and fluticasone propionate aqueous solution in the treatment of spring allergic rhinitis. METHODS: After a drug-free baseline evaluation, patients with rhinitis were randomized to receive either a triamcinolone aerosol spray of 110 microg in each nostril once daily (n = 117) or a fluticasone solution spray of 100 microg in each nostril once daily (n = 116) in a single-blind, parallel-group study. The Rhinitis Index Score (sum of scores of symptoms on a scale from 0 to 3) was evaluated daily, in the morning before drug administration, for 21 days. The efficacy of each treatment was assessed by the mean reduction from baseline in the Rhinitis Index Score and in individual symptom scores. Patients' acceptance of the study drugs was also monitored by a daily questionnaire. RESULTS: Reductions of the Rhinitis Index Score (mean +/- SEM) were 4.20 +/- 0.21 and 4.60 +/- 0.21 for triamcinolone and fluticasone, respectively (p = 0.23). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs in the reduction of any of the individual symptoms. Patients expressed statistically significant differences between the drugs regarding acceptance; different properties of the aerosol and the solution were appreciated differently. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that triamcinolone acetonide aerosol and fluticasone propionate solution sprays are both clinically equally effective, safe, and well tolerated for the treatment of spring pollen allergic rhinitis.