Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 μg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Authors: Kaliner, Michael A.; Storms, William; Tilles, Stephen; Spector, Sheldon; Tan, Ricardo; LaForce, Craig; Lanier, Bobby Q.; Chipps, Bradley

Source: Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, Volume 30, Number 3, May-June 2009 , pp. 255-262(8)

Publisher: OceanSide Publications, Inc

Buy & download fulltext article:

Price: $39.50 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

The efficacy of nasal antihistamines (NAHs) for allergic rhinitis (AR) is comparable with or better than second-generation oral antihistamines, with faster onset of action and greater effect on congestion. Limited data suggest that NAHs may be equivalent to intranasal corticosteroids at reducing the full range of nasal seasonal AR (SAR) symptoms, including congestion. The efficacy of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.) for symptoms of SAR was compared with fluticasone 50 microg nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril q.d.) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 2-week noninferiority trial. A total of 130 symptomatic patients were randomized to treatment and they recorded nasal and ocular allergy symptom scores b.i.d. (morning and evening) in a diary. Both treatments reduced reflective and instantaneous assessments of nasal and ocular symptoms from baseline throughout the 2-week study period (p < 0.05). The reflective total nasal symptom score (the primary efficacy variable) decreased by an average of −45.4% for patients treated with olopatadine 0.6% and by −47.4% for those treated with fluticasone; statistical significance favoring olopatadine was demonstrated at day 1. No significant between-treatment differences were determined for the average 2-week percent changes from baseline for congestion, runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and ocular symptoms, although olopatadine had a faster onset of action for reducing all symptoms. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Olopatadine and fluticasone nasal sprays both reduced nasal and ocular SAR symptoms with no significant between-treatment differences except for a faster and greater onset of action with olopatadine.

Keywords: Allergic conjunctivitis; allergic rhinitis; allergy; antihistamines; fluticasone; intranasal steroids; nasal antihistamines; olopatadine; seasonal allergic rhinitis

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/aap.2009.30.3232

Affiliations: 1: Institute for Allergy and Asthma, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20817, USA. makaliner@aol.com

Publication date: 2009-05-01

More about this publication?

Allergy and Asthma Proceedings is a peer reviewed publication dedicated to distributing timely scientific research regarding advancements in the knowledge and practice of allergy, asthma and immunology. Its primary readership consists of allergists and pulmonologists.

The goal of the Proceedings is to publish articles with a predominantly clinical focus which directly impact quality of care for patients with allergic disease and asthma.

Featured topics include asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, food allergies, allergic skin diseases, diagnostic techniques, allergens, and treatment modalities. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials and review articles.

The journal is indexed in Thomson Reuters Web of Science and Science Citation Index Expanded, plus the National Library of Medicine's PubMed service.
Editorial Board
Information for Authors
Submit a Paper
Information for Advertisers
Reprint Requests
ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 μg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Buy & download fulltext article:

Tools

Key

Text size:

Useful pages