盐酸氮卓斯汀和糠酸氟替卡松治疗过敏性鼻炎的疗效和安全性比较研究。

IF 1.9 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Journal of Family and Community Medicine Pub Date : 2020-09-01 Epub Date: 2020-09-25 DOI:10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_103_20
Nandish Chennakeshavaraju, Sarala Narayana, Azeem S M Mohiyuddin
{"title":"盐酸氮卓斯汀和糠酸氟替卡松治疗过敏性鼻炎的疗效和安全性比较研究。","authors":"Nandish Chennakeshavaraju,&nbsp;Sarala Narayana,&nbsp;Azeem S M Mohiyuddin","doi":"10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_103_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allergic rhinitis (AR) is characterized by nasal itch, sneezing, watery or mucous rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and nasal or pharyngeal irritation. If untreated, AR can impair patients' quality of life (QOL). Azelastine hydrochloride (AH), histamine receptor antagonists, has anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties. Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an anti-inflammatory agent with action on mast cells, eosinophils, neutrophils, macrophages, and lymphocytes. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these medications in AR.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients in the study had been clinically diagnosed with AR. In each group, there were 75 randomized patients who were to receive either FF (27.5 μg/spray) or AH (0.10%) intranasally twice daily. Assessment in terms of symptoms (total nasal symptom score), signs (endoscopic staging), QOL, eosinophil count, and sensory attributes was done at baseline, day 7, and day 15. Adverse effects were recorded, and the cost incurred was analyzed. Paired and umpaired <i>t</i>-test were used to compare symptom scores, QOL scores, and absolute eosinophil count within and between the groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total number of patients was 150 (76 males and 74 females); the mean age for FF group was 26.23 ± 5.2 years, and 26.96 ± 4.8 years for AH group. By day 7, there was a reduction of all scores in both medications, but the reduction in reduction was highly significant with FF (<i>P</i> = 0.001). There was a significant reduction (<i>P</i> = 0.001) in absolute eosinophil count both in blood and nasal smears by day 15 in both the groups; the reduction was significant (<i>P</i> = 0.001) with fluticasone. Adverse reactions were reported by 33.3% of patients receiving FF and 28% patients receiving AH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Fluticasone furoate produced sustained relief of symptoms, signs, and sensory attributes with a greater reduction in eosinophil count in comparison with AH in patients with allergic rhinitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":46862,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family and Community Medicine","volume":"27 3","pages":"186-191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ee/37/JFCM-27-186.PMC7745787.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone furoate in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.\",\"authors\":\"Nandish Chennakeshavaraju,&nbsp;Sarala Narayana,&nbsp;Azeem S M Mohiyuddin\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_103_20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allergic rhinitis (AR) is characterized by nasal itch, sneezing, watery or mucous rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and nasal or pharyngeal irritation. If untreated, AR can impair patients' quality of life (QOL). Azelastine hydrochloride (AH), histamine receptor antagonists, has anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties. Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an anti-inflammatory agent with action on mast cells, eosinophils, neutrophils, macrophages, and lymphocytes. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these medications in AR.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients in the study had been clinically diagnosed with AR. In each group, there were 75 randomized patients who were to receive either FF (27.5 μg/spray) or AH (0.10%) intranasally twice daily. Assessment in terms of symptoms (total nasal symptom score), signs (endoscopic staging), QOL, eosinophil count, and sensory attributes was done at baseline, day 7, and day 15. Adverse effects were recorded, and the cost incurred was analyzed. Paired and umpaired <i>t</i>-test were used to compare symptom scores, QOL scores, and absolute eosinophil count within and between the groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total number of patients was 150 (76 males and 74 females); the mean age for FF group was 26.23 ± 5.2 years, and 26.96 ± 4.8 years for AH group. By day 7, there was a reduction of all scores in both medications, but the reduction in reduction was highly significant with FF (<i>P</i> = 0.001). There was a significant reduction (<i>P</i> = 0.001) in absolute eosinophil count both in blood and nasal smears by day 15 in both the groups; the reduction was significant (<i>P</i> = 0.001) with fluticasone. Adverse reactions were reported by 33.3% of patients receiving FF and 28% patients receiving AH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Fluticasone furoate produced sustained relief of symptoms, signs, and sensory attributes with a greater reduction in eosinophil count in comparison with AH in patients with allergic rhinitis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family and Community Medicine\",\"volume\":\"27 3\",\"pages\":\"186-191\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ee/37/JFCM-27-186.PMC7745787.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Family and Community Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_103_20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/9/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family and Community Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_103_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:变应性鼻炎(AR)以鼻痒、打喷嚏、水状或粘液性鼻漏、鼻塞、鼻或咽刺激为特征。如果不治疗,AR会损害患者的生活质量(QOL)。Azelastine hydrochloride (AH)是组胺受体拮抗剂,具有抗炎和稳定肥大细胞的作用。糠酸氟替卡松(FF)是一种抗炎剂,对肥大细胞、嗜酸性粒细胞、中性粒细胞、巨噬细胞和淋巴细胞起作用。本研究比较了这些药物治疗AR的疗效和安全性。材料和方法:研究中的患者均为临床诊断为AR的患者。在每组中,随机选取75例患者,每日2次鼻内注射FF (27.5 μg/spray)或AH(0.10%)。在基线、第7天和第15天分别对症状(鼻症状总评分)、体征(内镜分期)、生活质量、嗜酸性粒细胞计数和感觉属性进行评估。记录不良反应,并分析产生的费用。采用配对和非配对t检验分别比较组内和组间的症状评分、生活质量评分和绝对嗜酸性粒细胞计数。结果:患者总数150例(男76例,女74例);FF组平均年龄26.23±5.2岁,AH组平均年龄26.96±4.8岁。到第7天,两种药物的所有评分都降低了,但FF组的降低非常显著(P = 0.001)。到第15天,两组患者血液和鼻涂片中嗜酸性粒细胞绝对计数均显著降低(P = 0.001);氟替卡松组降低显著(P = 0.001)。接受FF治疗的患者中有33.3%报告了不良反应,接受AH治疗的患者中有28%报告了不良反应。结论:与AH相比,糠酸氟替卡松能持续缓解变应性鼻炎患者的症状、体征和感觉特性,并能显著降低嗜酸性粒细胞计数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone furoate in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone furoate in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is characterized by nasal itch, sneezing, watery or mucous rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and nasal or pharyngeal irritation. If untreated, AR can impair patients' quality of life (QOL). Azelastine hydrochloride (AH), histamine receptor antagonists, has anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties. Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an anti-inflammatory agent with action on mast cells, eosinophils, neutrophils, macrophages, and lymphocytes. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these medications in AR.

Materials and methods: Patients in the study had been clinically diagnosed with AR. In each group, there were 75 randomized patients who were to receive either FF (27.5 μg/spray) or AH (0.10%) intranasally twice daily. Assessment in terms of symptoms (total nasal symptom score), signs (endoscopic staging), QOL, eosinophil count, and sensory attributes was done at baseline, day 7, and day 15. Adverse effects were recorded, and the cost incurred was analyzed. Paired and umpaired t-test were used to compare symptom scores, QOL scores, and absolute eosinophil count within and between the groups, respectively.

Results: The total number of patients was 150 (76 males and 74 females); the mean age for FF group was 26.23 ± 5.2 years, and 26.96 ± 4.8 years for AH group. By day 7, there was a reduction of all scores in both medications, but the reduction in reduction was highly significant with FF (P = 0.001). There was a significant reduction (P = 0.001) in absolute eosinophil count both in blood and nasal smears by day 15 in both the groups; the reduction was significant (P = 0.001) with fluticasone. Adverse reactions were reported by 33.3% of patients receiving FF and 28% patients receiving AH.

Conclusion: Fluticasone furoate produced sustained relief of symptoms, signs, and sensory attributes with a greater reduction in eosinophil count in comparison with AH in patients with allergic rhinitis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Family and Community Medicine
Journal of Family and Community Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
3.70%
发文量
20
审稿时长
37 weeks
×
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