Efficiency of Oral Steroids and Steroidal Nasal Spray in Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Comparative Study

IF 0.8 Q3 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Asma Ahmed, Rajunaik Ajmeera, M. Bagrecha, Ganaraj Shetty, D. Mallika, Priyanka Sharma, Raj Kumar Tiwari
{"title":"Efficiency of Oral Steroids and Steroidal Nasal Spray in Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Comparative Study","authors":"Asma Ahmed, Rajunaik Ajmeera, M. Bagrecha, Ganaraj Shetty, D. Mallika, Priyanka Sharma, Raj Kumar Tiwari","doi":"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_409_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n \n \n \n To assess how well steroidal nasal sprays and oral steroids work for treating CRS.\n \n \n \n Two hundred patients with CRS were included in a randomized controlled experiment. The patients were split into two groups: Group B received steroidal nasal sprays (fluticasone propionate 110 mcg/day in each nostril for 12 weeks) and Group A received oral steroids (prednisolone 30 mg/day for 14 days, followed by tapering over 7 days). The “Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22)” was used to quantify improvement in symptoms, the “Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI)” was used to measure quality of life, and the recurrence rate was measured at the 6-month follow-up.\n \n \n \n At 12 weeks, SNOT-22 and RSDI scores significantly improved with both oral steroids and steroidal nasal sprays (P < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, however, oral steroids had a greater recurrence rate (25% vs. 12%, P = 0.02) when compared to steroidal nasal sprays. The two groups’ adverse effects were similar and of low severity.\n \n \n \n In conclusion, nasal sprays containing steroids seem to be a safer and more successful option than oral steroids for treating CRS, making them worthy of being used as the first line of treatment.\n","PeriodicalId":16824,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences","volume":"46 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_409_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT To assess how well steroidal nasal sprays and oral steroids work for treating CRS. Two hundred patients with CRS were included in a randomized controlled experiment. The patients were split into two groups: Group B received steroidal nasal sprays (fluticasone propionate 110 mcg/day in each nostril for 12 weeks) and Group A received oral steroids (prednisolone 30 mg/day for 14 days, followed by tapering over 7 days). The “Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22)” was used to quantify improvement in symptoms, the “Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI)” was used to measure quality of life, and the recurrence rate was measured at the 6-month follow-up. At 12 weeks, SNOT-22 and RSDI scores significantly improved with both oral steroids and steroidal nasal sprays (P < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, however, oral steroids had a greater recurrence rate (25% vs. 12%, P = 0.02) when compared to steroidal nasal sprays. The two groups’ adverse effects were similar and of low severity. In conclusion, nasal sprays containing steroids seem to be a safer and more successful option than oral steroids for treating CRS, making them worthy of being used as the first line of treatment.
口服类固醇和类固醇鼻腔喷雾剂治疗慢性鼻窦炎的效果:比较研究
摘要 评估类固醇鼻腔喷雾剂和口服类固醇治疗 CRS 的效果。 200 名 CRS 患者被纳入随机对照实验。患者被分为两组:B 组接受类固醇鼻腔喷雾剂(丙酸氟替卡松 110 微克/天,每个鼻孔使用 12 周),A 组接受口服类固醇(泼尼松龙 30 毫克/天,使用 14 天,然后在 7 天内逐渐减量)。采用 "中鼻结果测试(SNOT-22)"量化症状改善情况,采用 "鼻炎致残指数(RSDI)"衡量生活质量,并在 6 个月随访时测量复发率。 12 周后,口服类固醇和类固醇鼻腔喷雾剂均可显著改善 SNOT-22 和 RSDI 评分(P < 0.05)。然而,在 6 个月的随访中,口服类固醇的复发率(25% 对 12%,P = 0.02)高于类固醇鼻腔喷雾剂。两组的不良反应相似,且严重程度较低。 总之,与口服类固醇相比,含类固醇的鼻腔喷雾剂似乎是治疗 CRS 更安全、更成功的选择,因此值得作为一线治疗药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
275
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences is a Quarterly multidisciplinary open access biomedical journal. Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences is an international medium of interaction between scientist, academicians and industrial personnel’s.JPBS is now offial publication of OPUBS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信