Small P, Houle P A, Day J H, Briscoe M, Gold M, Brodarec I, Ham Pong A, Mandl M, Spénard J, Phillips R, Furlan M
Sir M. B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1997 Nov;100(5):592-5. doi: 10.1016/s0091-6749(97)70160-x.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
有多种不同效力和剂型的鼻用皮质类固醇药物可供使用,且均已被证明安全有效。这些差异的临床相关性(若存在)尚未完全明确。
我们试图比较曲安奈德气雾剂和丙酸氟替卡松水溶液治疗春季过敏性鼻炎的疗效、安全性及患者接受度。
在进行无药物的基线评估后,鼻炎患者被随机分为两组,在一项单盲、平行组研究中,一组患者每日每侧鼻孔使用110微克曲安奈德气雾剂(n = 117),另一组患者每日每侧鼻孔使用100微克丙酸氟替卡松溶液喷雾剂(n = 116)。在给药前的早晨,每天评估鼻炎指数评分(症状评分从0到3的总和),持续21天。通过鼻炎指数评分及各个症状评分相对于基线的平均降低值来评估每种治疗方法的疗效。还通过每日问卷监测患者对研究药物的接受度。
曲安奈德和丙酸氟替卡松治疗后鼻炎指数评分的降低值(均值±标准误)分别为4.20±0.21和4.60±0.21(p = 0.23)。在任何单个症状的减轻方面,两种药物之间均无统计学显著差异。患者对两种药物的接受度存在统计学显著差异;气雾剂和溶液的不同特性受到的评价不同。
本研究表明,曲安奈德气雾剂和丙酸氟替卡松溶液喷雾剂在治疗春季花粉过敏性鼻炎方面临床疗效相当,安全性良好且耐受性佳。