Fluticasone furoate nasal spray is more effective than fexofenadine for nighttime symptoms of seasonal allergy

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.

Therapeutic Targets in Allergic Conjunctivitis

Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a common condition resulting from exposure to allergens such as pollen, animal dander, or mold. It is typically mediated by allergen-induced crosslinking of immunoglobulin E attached to receptors on primed conjunctival mast cells, which results in mast cell degranulation and histamine release, as well as the release of lipid mediators, cytokines, and chemokines. The clinical result is conjunctival hyperemia, tearing, intense itching, and chemosis. Refractory and chronic cases can result in ocular surface complications that may be vision threatening. Patients who experience even mild forms of this disease report an impact on their quality of life. Current treatment options range from non-pharmacologic therapies to ocular and systemic options. However, to adequately control AC, the use of multiple agents is often required. As such, a precise understanding of the immune mechanisms responsible for this ocular surface inflammation is needed to support ongoing research for potential therapeutic targets such as chemokine receptors, cytokine receptors, non-receptor tyrosine kinases, and integrins. This review utilized several published articles regarding the current therapeutic options to treat AC, as well as the pathological and immune mechanisms relevant to AC. This review will also focus on cellular and molecular targets in AC, with particular emphasis on potential therapeutic agents that can attenuate the pathology and immune mechanisms driven by cells, receptors, and molecules that participate in the immunopathogenesis and immunopathology of AC.

A contemporary look at allergic conjunctivitis

Allergic eye disease is common, yet often overlooked in North America. In the U.S., up to 40% of the population is deemed to be affected and this number is growing. Symptoms and signs of ocular allergy can lead to decreased productivity and negatively impact quality of life (QoL). Various treatment options exist to achieve symptom control. For allergic conjunctivitis, ophthalmic agents include antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, dual-activity agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), steroids and some off-label treatments. Immunotherapy is recommended as a therapeutic option. This review provides a summary of the forms of ocular allergies, with a focus on symptoms and signs, impact on QoL, physical examination, diagnosis and therapeutic options of allergic conjunctivitis. Through multidisciplinary collaborations, a simplified algorithm for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis is proposed for Canadian clinical practice.

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.

Management of allergic rhinitis in the era of effective over-the-counter treatments

Allergic rhinitis (AR) may be regarded as a trivial issue unworthy of the doctor's time, and with the availability of many different over-the-counter (OTC) treatments, up to two thirds of patients self-manage AR before seeking medical care. Yet, AR can have a significant impact on health-related quality of life and is associated with a greater detriment to work productivity than other chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. For many patients, the impact on quality of life is greater than suggested by reported symptoms and should also be a focus of treatment. Although many patients can effectively manage AR symptoms independently, a significant percentage will need direction from a physician to obtain optimal results. The availability of several different classes of treatment - including decongestants, sedating and non-sedating antihistamines, and more recently intranasal corticosteroids (INS) - has increased the complexity of self-management, leaving patients confused about the best approach to treatment. Treatment guidelines universally classify INS as the most effective medical agents available for use in the OTC and primary care settings. Many patients are unaware that INS are available OTC and that they are more effective than other therapies. Patients may have negative perceptions about the safety of INS and may have experienced unpleasant taste, scent, and feel with nasal sprays. Unless a patient volunteers the information, healthcare professionals (HCPs) may be unaware that the patient has significant AR and is using one or more OTC AR therapies. To address this gap in communication, HCPs must be proactive in identifying, assessing, and advising patients with AR, including best strategies to assess allergen trigger symptoms, which treatments are appropriate, and when and how to use them. Proper use of delivery devices is especially important. This article reviews the primary care management of AR in the context of the availability of effective OTC medicines.

The mountain cedar model in clinical trials of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis use the mountain cedar (Juniperus ashei) season as the predominate model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical trials of rhinoconjunctivitis using mountain cedar, to present analysis of pollen counts during 18 seasons, and to discuss the model.

METHODS

The medical literature was searched for clinical trials performed using mountain cedar either in or out of season. Pollen counts were recorded and analyzed for the duration of 18 seasons.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials were identified. Of these, 1 evaluated onset of allergy, 8 were immunotherapy trials, 28 were pharmaceutical clinical trials, and 1 studied symptoms elicited in a pollen challenge chamber trial. Many generic equivalency trials are unreported. In the 18 years of counts in the Texas Hill Country, a dependable and intense pollen density was present in every season. The combination of dependable seasons without confounding pollens, the large number of allergic patients, and the ability to concentrate resources in one geographic area has made mountain cedar allergy a mainstay for therapeutic trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

CONCLUSION

Mountain cedar allergy presents a dependable and durable model of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

No mucosal atrophy and reduced inflammatory cells: active-controlled trial with yearlong fluticasone furoate nasal spray

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) and mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) are well tolerated and more effective than placebo at relieving the symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. Effects of FFNS on the nasal histology have not been previously reported. This study examines the effects of FFNS and MFNS, administered daily for 1 year, on the nasal mucosa in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized 1:1 to q.d., open-label treatment with FFNS, 110 μg, or MFNS, 200 μg, for 1 year. These groups and a healthy control group that did not receive study medication underwent nasal biopsies at baseline and 12 months.

RESULTS

The nasal biopsy population comprised 96 participants (37 using FFNS, 42 using MFNS, and 17 healthy controls). Epithelial thickness did not change appreciably from baseline to week 52 in any of the groups and mean change from baseline did not differ between FFNS and MFNS (least square mean difference, -0.001 mm, 95% confidence interval, -0.007, 0.006). Although not tested for significance, improvements over baseline were observed in epithelial histology in the FFNS group with more epithelium including intact columnar and ciliated epithelial cells. No appreciable change in the percentage of goblet cells was established. FFNS and MFNS were associated with decreases in epithelial and subepithelial nasal mucosal eosinophils and basophils from baseline to week 52. The percentage of subjects with no inflammatory cells at week 52 was 49 and 33% for eosinophils and 46 and 24% for basophils, for FFNS and MFNS, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Yearlong therapy with either FFNS or MFNS showed no changes in epithelial thickness or the percentage of goblet cells as well as a reduction in inflammatory cell infiltrate. FFNS was associated with improvements in epithelial histology. These data support the long-term safety of FFNS in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis.

Twenty-Four–hour Duration of Effect of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Symptoms: Clinical Evidence and Relevance

Background

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms are often most severe and/or disruptive during overnight and morning hours, resulting in cognitive/performance impairments and reduced quality of life throughout the following day. Surveys of allergy patients and health care practitioners reveal a common perception that intranasal steroids (INSs), many of which are dosed q.d., fail to adequately relieve symptoms for a full 24 hours. This review assessed whether perceptions of the 24-hour duration of action of INSs correspond with duration of action documented in clinical literature.

Methods

SAR clinical trial literature of the last 5 years was reviewed to identify studies of INSs incorporating morning instantaneous (A.M. NOW) or instantaneous assessments of 24-hour duration of action.

Results

In numerous placebo-controlled trials of INSs in patients with SAR, treatment was associated with significantly greater improvements in A.M. NOW symptoms from baseline versus placebo. For congestion, this is noteworthy, because patients often cite this symptom, especially in the morning, as the most bothersome symptom. Comparison of A.M. NOW and daily scores suggests minimal drop in efficacy at 24 hours postdose. In several studies, INS treatment was found superior to intranasal or oral antihistamines in A.M. NOW symptom improvement.

Conclusion

Once-daily INSs have potential for effective 24-hour symptom relief; however, there is an apparent disconnect between these findings and patient/physician perceptions. This discrepancy may be explained, in part, by less-than-ideal treatment adherence among “real-world” patients versus subjects treated in clinical trials. Proactive counseling can encourage proper INS use and help maximize treatment benefits.

A review of the use of fluticasone furoate since its launch

INTRODUCTION

Fluticasone furoate (FF) is the latest glucocorticoid officially approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. FF has shown the highest affinity and selectivity for the glucocorticoid receptors as well the longest tissue retention compared with other available intranasal steroids; these new pharmacologic characteristics provide the basis for its potent and prolonged anti-inflammatory activity at the target site.

AREAS COVERED

A literature review achieved through PubMed and Medline research methods supports the clinical efficacy of FF versus placebo in reducing ocular and nasal symptoms related to allergic rhinitis (at the recommended starting doses of 110 μg once daily for adults and adolescents and 55 μg once daily for children), with a good safety profile. Moreover, the present review also compares FF with other intranasal steroids: FF represents a molecular evolution of fluticasone propionate (FP), and there is scientific evidence of therapeutic advantages over FP.

EXPERT OPINION

Fluticasone furoate is a promising molecule in the treatment of allergic rhinitis as it fits fully all the official guidelines' criteria. It is now being considered as a topical steroid that is quite close to the ideal pharmacological model for glucocorticoids due to its satisfying safety/tolerability profile, both in adults and children, leads FF to be considered as a topical steroid that is quite close to the ideal pharmacologic model for glucocorticoids. More studies should be directed to assess the improvement of quality of life in subjects with allergic rhinitis treated with FF, in comparison with other intranasal steroids and even H1-antihistamines; in addition, it could be also interesting to analyze eventual, additional effects of FF in patients with bronchial asthma, which is frequently associated with allergic rhinitis.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol, 80 or 160 μg once daily, for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

A hypotonic aqueous nasal spray of ciclesonide is indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). A new nasal aerosol formulation of ciclesonide containing a hydrofluoroalkane propellant delivered via a metered-dose inhaler (CIC-HFA) is currently in clinical development as a potential treatment for AR.

OBJECTIVES

To study the efficacy and safety of once-daily administration of CIC-HFA 80 or 160 μg compared with placebo in subjects 12 years and older with seasonal AR (SAR).

METHODS

Subjects 12 years and older with a ≥ 2-year history of SAR were randomized in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study to receive CIC-HFA 80 or 160 μg or placebo once daily in the morning for 2 weeks. Changes from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom scores (rTNSSs), instantaneous TNSSs (iTNSSs), and reflective total ocular symptom scores (rTOSSs) in subjects with a baseline rTOSS of ≥ 5.00 were evaluated. Treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

Seven hundred seven subjects were randomized. From baseline, CIC-HFA 80 or 160 μg demonstrated 15.1% and 16.0% reductions in rTNSSs (P < .0001, 3.7% for placebo), 14.3% and 15.4% reductions in iTNSSs (P < .0001, 3.9% for placebo), and 15.7% and 15.0% reductions in rTOSSs (P < .001, 6.8% for placebo). The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was low and comparable between the CIC-HFA and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, once-daily treatment with CIC-HFA 80 or 160 μg demonstrated statistically significant improvements in nasal and ocular symptoms of SAR. Both doses of active treatment were well tolerated.

Fluticasone Furoate Nasal Spray is Effective and Well Tolerated for Perennial Allergic Rhinitis in Adolescents and Adults

Background

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS), an intranasal corticosteroid, has been shown to be effective in perennial allergic rhinitis in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies but has been less extensively studied in perennial allergic rhinitis than seasonal allergic rhinitis. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FFNS in perennial allergic rhinitis in adolescents and adults ≥12 years of age.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (FFU111439), patients ≥12 years old with perennial allergic rhinitis received FFNS, 110 micrograms (n = 160), or placebo (n = 155) q.d. for 4 weeks.

Results

Over the entire treatment period, FFNS was significantly (p < 0.05) more effective than placebo with respect to mean changes from baseline in daily reflective total nasal symptoms (primary end point), morning and evening reflective total nasal symptoms, daily reflective individual nasal symptoms, morning predose instantaneous total and individual nasal symptoms, and morning and evening peak nasal inspiratory flow. FFNS did not show a statistically significant difference from placebo in comparisons of ocular symptom measures. Clinically meaningful improvement versus placebo was observed on the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire with Standardised Activities overall score. Adverse events reported in >3% of patients in a treatment group and reported more frequently with FFNS than placebo were epistaxis (15% FFNS, 8% placebo) and nasopharyngitis (5% FFNS, 1% placebo).

Conclusion

Once-daily FFNS was well tolerated and more effective than placebo at improving nasal symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis in adolescents and adults ≥12 years of age.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray reduces the ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), a potent intranasal corticosteroid with proved efficacy in relieving nasal allergic rhinitis symptoms, has demonstrated effectiveness in improving ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in retrospective analyses.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of MFNS in reducing total ocular symptom scores (TOSSs) and individual ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

METHODS

Subjects 12 years or older (n = 429) with moderate-to-severe baseline symptoms were randomized to MFNS, 200 microg once daily, or placebo in this 15-day, double-blind, parallel-group study. Subjects evaluated morning instantaneous TOSSs and daily reflective TOSSs, total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs; both instantaneous TNSSs and reflective TNSSs, respectively), and individual ocular and nasal symptoms. Mean changes from baseline averaged over days 2 to 15 (instantaneous) and days 1 to 15 (reflective) were calculated. Quality of life was assessed by using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

MFNS treatment yielded significant reductions from baseline versus placebo in instantaneous TOSSs (-0.34, P = .026, coprimary end point), instantaneous TNSSs (-0.88, P < .001, coprimary end point), reflective TOSSs (-0.44, P = .005), and reflective TNSSs (-1.06, P < .001). Significant decreases in all individual reflective ocular symptoms and instantaneous eye itching/burning and eye watering/tearing were observed for MFNS versus placebo (P < .05). Numeric improvements in instantaneous eye redness were seen but did not reach statistical significance. Improvements in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire total scores and individual symptom domains were achieved with MFNS treatment versus placebo (P < .001). MFNS was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This prospective study demonstrates that MFNS significantly reduces ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

Allergic conjunctivitis and the impact of allergic rhinitis

Although nasal allergy has been prominent in allergy research, ocular allergy is increasingly recognized as a distinct symptom complex that imposes its own disease burden and reduction in patients' quality of life. In the past year, knowledge of the relationships between allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis has increased. Allergic conjunctivitis is highly prevalent and has a close epidemiologic relationship with allergic rhinitis. Both conditions also exhibit similar pathophysiologic mechanisms. Pathways of communication are thought to increase the likelihood of an inflammatory reaction at both sites following allergen exposure of nasal or ocular tissue. Clinical trials of intranasal therapies have demonstrated efficacy in allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis. Newer intranasal steroids decrease ocular symptoms, potentially achieving efficacy by suppressing the naso-ocular reflex, downregulation of inflammatory cell expression, or restoration of nasolacrimal duct patency. Proposed pathophysiologic interactions between allergic rhinitis and ocular allergy underscore the need for therapies with efficacy in both symptom sets.

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray: Profile of an enhanced-affinity corticosteroid in treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Of the classes of pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis, intranasal corticosteroids are the preferred treatment and are recommended in practice guidelines as first-line pharmacotherapy for rhinitis with prominent nasal congestion. The enhanced-affinity intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone furoate nasal spray (GW685698X), is one of the newest additions to the armamentarium for allergic rhinitis. This review summarizes the preclinical and clinical data on fluticasone furoate nasal spray and discusses its place in pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Important attributes of fluticasone furoate in seasonal allergic rhinitis include low systemic bioavailability (<0.5%), onset of symptom relief as early as eight hours after initiation of treatment, 24-hour symptom relief with once-daily dosing, comprehensive coverage of both nasal and ocular symptoms, safety and tolerability with daily use, and availability in a side-actuated device that makes medication delivery simple and consistent. With these attributes, fluticasone furoate nasal spray has the potential to enhance patient satisfaction and compliance and reduce the need for polypharmacy in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Are intranasal corticosteroids all equally consistent in managing ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis?

BACKGROUND

Nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR) are reported by >70% of patients and have a profound impact on quality of life while also incurring substantial healthcare costs. It has been suggested that intranasal corticosteroids (INS), in addition to effectively treating the nasal components of AR, are effective in treating the ocular symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

This review provides a comprehensive, updated assessment of available data in the public domain to determine the consistency of INS efficacy in treating ocular AR symptoms.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE searches, and research of governmental and regulatory institution sources identified 35 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of INS and seasonal AR (SAR) published between 1990 and May 2009 that specifically contained ocular efficacy as part of the study analyses.

RESULTS

Examination of these studies reveals substantial inconsistency of effect of some INS across, and even within, trials, casting doubt on the suggestion that ocular efficacy is a class effect of INS. Conflicting, inconsistent or even negative effects were observed for most INS examined including mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate. Only fluticasone furoate nasal spray, in addition to established efficacy in treating nasal symptoms, demonstrated a consistent positive effect on ocular symptoms of SAR compared with placebo in a large number of patients across all of its prospective studies. Moreover, these results were consistent across different allergy seasons, including grass, ragweed, and mountain cedar seasons, and different geographical locations throughout Europe and the USA.

CONCLUSION

While additional prospective head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy of INS in treating ocular symptoms of AR are needed to fully elucidate the benefits of one INS compared with another, data available to date suggest that not all INS are equally consistent in managing ocular symptoms of SAR. Fluticasone furoate is currently the most consistent.