Triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray for the treatment of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.

METHODS

The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose intranasal corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis assessed the comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose aqueous INCSs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 31 March 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing INCSs with placebo or other types of INCSs in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guideline. A random-effects model was used for data pooling. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). The primary outcomes were the efficacy in improving total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and treatment acceptability (the study dropout). We included 26 studies, 13 with 5,134 seasonal AR patients and 13 with 4,393 perennial AR patients. Most placebo-controlled studies had a moderate quality of evidence. In seasonal AR, mometasone furoate (MF) was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by fluticasone furoate (FF), ciclesonide (CIC), fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) (SMD -0.47, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.31; -0.46, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.33; -0.44, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.13; -0.42, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17 and -0.41, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.00), In perennial AR, budesonide was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by FF, TAA, CIC, and MF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.11; -0.36, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.19; -0.32, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.10; -0.29, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11; and -0.28, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.01). The acceptability of all included INCSs was not inferior to the placebo. According to our indirect comparison, some INCSs have superior efficacy to others with moderate quality of evidence in most placebo-controlled studies for treating moderate-to-severe AR.

Triamcinolone Acetonide versus Fluticasone Propionate in the Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Trial

BACKGROUND

Intranasal sprays are recommended as targeted therapy for allergic rhinitis (AR). Triamcinolone acetonide is a nasal corticosteroid preparation indicated for the treatment of seasonal and perennial AR (PAR) in different countries worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

In order to determine the efficacy of triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of PAR, the non-inferiority of triamcinolone acetonide to fluticasone propionate was assessed in Russian adults.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, prospective, non-inferiority, phase III clinical trial, a total of 260 patients with persistent PAR were randomized to receive either triamcinolone acetonide or fluticasone propionate nasal sprays for 4 weeks. The efficacy in symptom control was evaluated using the reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) from baseline (day 0) to day 28. Safety was assessed through the reporting of adverse events.

RESULTS

The rTNSS mean values decreased from baseline to the end of study treatment (day 28) in both groups: -8.2 ± 3.0 in the triamcinolone acetonide arm versus -8.0 ± 2.8 in the fluticasone propionate arm. The mean difference between the groups (triamcinolone acetonide - fluticasone propionate) for rTNSS change from baseline was -0.2 (95% confidence interval -0.89 to 0.54), with an upper confidence limit of 0.54, which is lower than the non-inferiority margin of 0.8. Triamcinolone acetonide was well tolerated, with no difference in adverse event occurrence compared with fluticasone propionate.

CONCLUSIONS

Triamcinolone acetonide proved to be non-inferior to fluticasone propionate in adult patients with PAR; both treatments decreased rTNSS values and showed a good safety profile.

Epistaxis Risk Associated with Intranasal Corticosteroid Sprays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are widely utilized for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Epistaxis is a known adverse effect of INCSs, but it is not known if the risk of epistaxis differs among INCSs.

Data Sources

Systematic review of primary studies identified through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases.

Review Methods

Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA standard. English-language studies were queried through February 1, 2018. The search identified randomized controlled trials of INCSs for treatment of allergic rhinitis that reported incidence of epistaxis. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study, and meta-analysis was performed of the relative risk of epistaxis for each INCS.

Results

Of 949 identified studies, 72 met the criteria for analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall relative risk of epistaxis of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.32-1.67) for all INCSs. The INCSs associated with the highest risk of epistaxis were beclomethasone hydrofluoroalkane, fluticasone furoate, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate. Beclomethasone aqueous, ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane, and ciclesonide aqueous were associated with the lowest risk of epistaxis. Conclusions about epistaxis with use of budesonide, triamcinolone, and flunisolide are limited due to the low number of studies and high heterogeneity.

Conclusions

While a differential effect on epistaxis among INCS agents is not clearly demonstrated, this meta-analysis does confirm an increased risk of epistaxis for patients using INCSs as compared with placebo for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Once-Daily Administration of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Allergic Rhinitis: A Comparative Review of Efficacy, Safety, Patient Preference, and Cost

Background

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy, safety, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of once-daily budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS), fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS), mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), and triamcinolone aqueous nasal spray (TANS) for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) in adult patients.

Methods

A MEDLINE search (1966 to January 2004) was conducted to identify potentially relevant English language articles. Pertinent abstracts from recent allergy society meetings were identified also. The medical subject heading search terms included were intranasal corticosteroid (INS), nasal steroid, BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS and AR. Selected studies were randomized, controlled, comparison trials of patients with AR treated with once-daily BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS.

Results

All four INSs administered once daily were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of AR in adult patients, with similar efficacy and adverse event profiles. No differences were seen between INSs in systemic effects, except for significantly lower overnight urinary cortisol levels in healthy volunteers treated with FPNS compared with placebo. Based on sensory attributes, patients preferred BANS and TANS versus MFNS and FPNS. BANS was associated with more days of treatment per prescription at a lower cost per day for adults compared with the other INSs and is the only INS with a pregnancy category B rating.

Conclusion

BANS, FPNS, MFNS, and TANS have similar efficacy and safety profiles. Differences in sensory attributes, documented safety during pregnancy, and cost may contribute to better patient acceptance of one INS versus another and promote better adherence to therapy.

Optimal Duration of Allergic Rhinitis Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines have been published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) for the conduct of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) studies. These guidelines have differences regarding the duration of such trials: the FDA suggests 2 weeks for SAR and 4 weeks for PAR but the EMEA suggests 2 to 4 weeks for SAR and 6 to 12 weeks for PAR trials. In the interest of global harmonization, it would be desirable to have a uniform duration of such trials so that investigators, internationally, would be able to readily compare results for various types of treatments based on a single standard. Therefore, we performed an evidence-based review to answer the clinical question, What is the optimal duration for SAR and PAR clinical trials?

METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search of the published literature from 1995 to the present. We used appropriate search terms, such as allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis, perennial allergic rhinitis, SAR, and PAR, to identify pertinent articles. These articles were reviewed and graded according to the evidence quality.

RESULTS: After an initial screening of more than 300 articles, 138 articles were analyzed thoroughly. No study specifically addressed the question of the optimal duration of SAR or PAR clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the current FDA (draft) guidelines calling for a study length of 2 weeks for the assessment of drug efficacy for SAR and 4 weeks for the study of drug efficacy in PAR are appropriate and that longer study periods are not likely to add meaningfully to the assessment of drug efficacy.

Dose-related effect of intranasal corticosteroids on treatment outcome of persistent allergic rhinitis

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of the self-adjustable dosing regimen and explore potential dose-response relationships of intranasal corticosteroids in persistent allergic rhinitis.

Study Design

Prospective cohort study.

Subjects and Methods

Sixty-nine persistent allergic rhinitis patients were treated with 220 mcg of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide for 28 days. Patients with mild, intermittent symptoms were instructed to use the medication only after symptoms occurred once a day. Patients with symptoms that lasted more than 1 day and/or interrupted daily activities/sleep were instructed to continue the morning daily dose until they were symptom-free for 24 hours before stopping usage.

Results

All nasal symptom scores and peak expiratory flow index (PEFI) showed statistically significant improvements after treatment. At 28 days after treatment, the number of puffs and weight of steroids used were positively correlated with percentages of improvement in total symptoms score (TSS) and PEFI (ρ = 0.529, r = 0.571 and ρ = 0.350, r = 0.509 respectively). When at least 1400 mcg or 44 puffs were used, 60% TSS and 10% PEFI improvement were achieved.

Conclusion

A self-adjustable dosing approach proved to be an efficacious approach to controlling allergic rhinitis.

Effects of triamcinolone on quality of life in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To study the effects of triamcinolone acetonide on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in adult patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This study was conducted in South Africa as a placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Following a 7-day baseline run-in, patients were treated for 28 days with either triamcinolone or placebo. Interviewer-assisted quality-of-life assessments were conducted using the Juniper Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). Total symptom scores, including nasal congestion, were measured using daily diary cards.

RESULTS

A total of 337 patients were recruited and 253 patients completed the study per protocol, of which 55 had seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and 198 had persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR). Improvements in the mean scores per area of the RQLQ were significantly better with triamcinolone compared with placebo for the entire study group for activities (P = .04 at visit 4) and sleep, nasal symptoms, emotional problems, and overall score (P = .002, P = .04, P = .03, and P = .04, respectively, at visit 3). When the patients with SAR were separated from the patients with PAR in the analysis, improvement with triamcinolone was better than placebo only in the PAR patients. The overall investigator and patient assessments of relief favored triamcinolone.

CONCLUSIONS

Triamcinolone given for 4 weeks improves symptom scores and HRQL in patients with allergic rhinitis. The ability of triamcinolone to relieve nasal congestion symptoms in PAR patients was correlated with improvements in HRQL.

Triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray and fluticasone propionate are equally effective for relief of nasal symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE: We compared 220 µg daily intranasal aqueous triamcinolone acetonide (TAA AQ) with 200 µg daily fluticasone propionate (FP) for relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, parallel-group, investigator-blind study included patients with symptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis. After a baseline period, TAA AQ or FP was taken for about 21 days. Nasal symptom (discharge, stuffiness, itching, sneezing) severity was recorded twice daily; total nasal symptom score was calculated. Health-related quality of life was assessed by Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS: Reductions in individual symptoms and total nasal symptom score were statistically significant versus baseline and were equivalent between treatments: −3.15 ± 0.19 with TAA AQ (n = 148) and ∼3.17 ± 0.18 with FP (n = 147) (95% confidence interval for the difference, −0.7391 to 0.3693). Clinically and statistically significant improvements in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were comparable.

CONCLUSION: TAA AQ and FP were equally efficacious in relieving seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms and improving health-related quality of life.

SIGNIFICANCE: Differences in molecular potency of intranasal steroids do not confer differences in efficacy.

Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids are accepted as safe and effective first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Several intranasal corticosteroids are available: beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and triamcinolone acetonide. All are efficacious in treating seasonal allergic rhinitis and as prophylaxis for perennial allergic rhinitis. In general, they relieve nasal congestion and itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing that occur in the early and late phases of allergic response, with studies showing almost complete prevention of late-phase symptoms. The rationale for topical intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis is that adequate drug concentrations can be achieved at receptor sites in the nasal mucosa. This leads to symptom control and reduces the risk of systemic adverse effects. Adverse reactions usually are limited to the nasal mucosa, such as dryness, burning and stinging, and sneezing, together with headache and epistaxis in 5-10% of patients regardless of formulation or compound. Differences among agents are limited to potency, patient preference, dosing regimens, and delivery, device and vehicle.

A risk-benefit assessment of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide in allergic rhinitis

The efficacy of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide in seasonal and allergic rhinitis has been evaluated in clinical trials and has been compared with antihistamines and other intranasal corticosteroids. Intranasal corticosteroids are either as equally effective as or more effective than comparative drugs. Intranasal corticosteroids are particularly useful as they decrease membrane permeability and inhibit both early and late phase reactions to allergens. They minimise the nasal secretory response and reduce the sensitivity of local nasal irritant receptors. A potential benefit of topical application is the flushing action of the nasal mucosa, which may reduce allergens and secretions. In addition to seasonal and perennial rhinitis, intranasal corticosteroids have additional benefits when used to reduce inflammation in the treatment of sinusitis and may help in decreasing secondary rhinovirus infections. Furthermore, suboptimal control of asthma can be avoided by treatment of allergic rhinitis with intranasal corticosteroids. In clinical trials, common adverse effects for triamcinolone acetonide include sneezing, dry, mucosa, nasal irritation, sinus discomfort, throat discomfort, epistaxis and headache. Posterior subcapsular cataract formation has not been seen with triamcinolone acetonide. Recent literature evaluating systemic absorption of intranasal corticosteroids have shown surprising results where significant absorption has occurred with intranasal budesonide and fluticasone propionate. Growth and hypothalamic pituitary axis (HPA) function studies have been reviewed, with some intranasal corticosteroids showing changes with continual use. A retrospective study in children receiving daily triamcinolone acetonide for 12 months showed no effect on height and bodyweight. Triamcinolone acetonide at standard dosages (110 or 220microg once or twice a day) does not appear to suppress adrenal gland function and is effective in relieving most symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The International Consensus Conference Proceedings on Rhinitis now currently recommends the use of intranasal corticosteroids as first line therapy, since they have been found to be well tolerated and effective with minimal adverse effects and, specifically, no cognitive impairment. The recommended maximum dose of aqueous triamcinolone acetonide in adults and children is 220microg once a day. The aerosol form may be recommended in children between 7 and 12 years old, up to 440microg once a day or in divided doses. Duration of allergy treatment is generally for the length of each allergy season. If symptoms are perennial, then a reduction of dosage is made to the lowest effective dose with monitoring every 3 months for risk and benefit assessment. Complications to watch for include bleeding, and possible septal perforation and nasal candidiasis, although these are rare.

Triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray versus loratadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis: efficacy and quality of life

BACKGROUND

The new aqueous formulation of triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) was compared with loratadine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of TAA aqueous with loratadine in relieving the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A total of 351 patients were enrolled into this 4-week, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel group study. Patients received either TAA aqueous nasal spray (220 microg) or loratadine (10 mg) once daily. Efficacy variables were rhinitis symptom changes from baseline, physician global evaluations, and the patient dropout rate due to insufficient treatment effect. Safety and quality of life also was evaluated.

RESULTS

Both TAA aqueous-treated and loratadine-treated patients had improvement in symptoms as early as day 1. Overall, TAA aqueous was significantly (P < .05) more effective than loratadine in reducing total nasal symptoms and individual symptoms of nasal congestion, nasal itch, and sneezing. Ocular symptoms improved from baseline in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups based on physician global evaluation. A similar number of patients in each group discontinued the study due to ineffective treatment. Triamcinolone acetonide aqueous patients maintained a significantly (P < .05) better quality of life in three of the dimensions (activity, nasal symptoms, and practical problems) and for overall quality of life. There were no differences between the two treatment groups in the incidence of adverse events, none of which were clinically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Both TAA aqueous and loratadine were effective and well-tolerated in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Triamcinolone acetonide aqueous was significantly (P < .05) more effective than loratadine in controlling nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and maintaining a better quality of life for the patients.

Onset of action of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NASONEX) in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS, NASONEX ), is a new synthetic corticosteroid with considerable efficacy in the treatment of seasonal and perennial rhinitis and less than 0.1% systemic absorption. This study was designed to evaluate the time of onset of action of MFNS. The subjects were evaluated over the course of 2 weeks during the spring allergy season.

METHODS

The effects of MFNS 200 microg given once daily for 2 weeks were evaluated in a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 201 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Clinically significant onset of action was assessed prospectively by special patient diary cards kept during the first 3 days of treatment.

RESULTS

By 12 h after initial dosage (the earliest evaluation), 28% of patients in the MFNS group experienced clinically significant relief, compared with 13% of those given placebo (P = 0.01). Median time to at least moderate symptom relief in patients who received MFNS was 35.9 h, compared with more than 72 h in patients given placebo (P<0.01). By 72 h, 64% of the patients receiving MFNS experienced at least moderate relief, compared with 40% of those treated with placebo (P<0.01). Both patient and physician ratings of symptom severity, response to treatment, and overall condition of rhinitis indicated significant (P<0.01) superiority of MFNS over placebo. MFNS was well tolerated, with adverse events comparable to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

MFNS provided rapid onset of clinically significant symptom relief in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The inflammatory nature of allergic disease

The allergic inflammatory response in allergic rhinitis has been studied extensively owing to the high frequency of the condition, the significant morbidity it causes and the accessibility of the nasal tissue. The allergic inflammatory response is characterized by IgE synthesis, IgE-dependent mast cell activation and infiltration of the nasal mucosa by T lymphocytes and eosinophils. The immediate-phase response is mediated by a range of inflammatory mediators (such as histamine, leukotrienes and prostaglandins), resulting in vasodilatation, oedema, mucus secretion, itching and sneezing. Individuals who experience a late-phase response have further nasal symptoms 4-24 h after the initial challenge with allergen. Results of nasal biopsy studies indicate that the late-phase allergic response involves T-lymphocyte activation, production of TH2-type cytokines and tissue eosinophilia. Corticosteroids potently inhibit T-lymphocyte responses, and clinical studies in subjects with allergic rhinitis have demonstrated that they are extremely effective in blocking both early- and late-phase allergic reactions. Topical aqueous triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray represents a novel formulation of a topical corticosteroid for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Data from controlled clinical studies indicate that it is effective in treating seasonal and perennial disease, is well tolerated, does not suppress adrenocortical function, is odourless, and can be administered as a once-daily dose.

Tri-Nasal triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray 200 and 400 micrograms qd versus placebo and Nasacort triamcinolone acetonide nasal aerosol 440 micrograms qd in patients suffering from seasonal allergic rhinitis during the grass season

Tri-Nasal Nasal Spray is an investigational solution of triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) currently being evaluated as a treatment for allergic rhinitis. The safety and efficacy of 200 and 400 micrograms once daily doses of Tri-Nasal Nasal Spray, an active control (440 micrograms once daily of Nasacort Nasal aerosol), and Tri-Nasal Nasal Spray placebo were compared over a 2-week treatment period in a double-blind (the Nasacort treatment was not blinded), parallel design trial. A total of 377 adult patients in 13 centers were enrolled during the grass pollen season. The primary efficacy variable was the weekly average of the SSI (Symptom Severity Index), the sum of daily nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and sneezing severity scores from the patient diary. A total of 355 patients completed the study. All active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo in relieving nasal symptoms at each treatment week. The 400 micrograms Tri-Nasal Nasal Spray and Nasacort treatments had a rapid onset of action, demonstrating significant improvement in the SSI versus placebo by the second day of treatment. Results for the individual nasal symptoms and other secondary efficacy measures paralleled those of the primary efficacy variables. Tri-Nasal Nasal Spray and Nasacort were comparable in safety, and in treating the nonocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

In order to accommodate increasing patient preferences a new aqueous formulation of triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray was developed for the relief of symptoms associated with seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray (220 micrograms/day) with placebo in relieving the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis due to ragweed.

METHODS

One hundred forty patients received either a once daily 220-microgram dose of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray or placebo for 2 weeks. Patients evaluated the severity of seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms daily for 2 weeks according to a 4-point scale (0 = absent, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). Physician and patient global evaluations of overall treatment effectiveness were assessed at the end of the treatment period.

RESULTS

Patients receiving triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray, 220 micrograms/day, had significantly (P < .05) greater improvements in all rhinitis symptoms at weeks 1 and 2 and overall for the 2-week treatment period compared with the placebo group. A significant (P = .006) improvement in the nasal index occurred as early as 12 hours after the first dose of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray. Both patients and physicians reported a greater overall improvement in symptoms for the triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray group. There were no differences between the two treatment groups in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed that a 220-microgram dose of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray, administered once daily for 2 weeks, is well tolerated and reduces effectively the severity of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis due to ragweed.