Comparative efficacy, safety, and effect on quality of life of triamcinolone acetonide and fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal sprays in patients with fall seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND

The topical potency of fluticasone propionate (FP) is known to be four times greater than that of triamcinolone acetonide (TAA). However, the significance of this difference has not been proven in the clinical treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, safety, and effect on health-related quality of life (HRQL) of FP and TAA aqueous nasal sprays in patients with SAR.

METHODS

Single-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled design. Patients were randomized to 3-week treatment with TAA 220 microg (n = 172) or FP 200 microg (n = 180) as two sprays/nostril once daily AM. Twelve-hour reflective symptom evaluations (nasal discharge, stuffiness, itching; sneezing; ocular itching/tearing/redness) were performed AM/PM, beginning at pretreatment baseline period. Incidences of specific treatment-related side effects were collected in daily questionnaires. HRQL was evaluated at baseline and end-of-treatment with a validated disease-specific, quality-of-life instrument.

RESULTS

TAA and FP produced similar improvement in daily total nasal symptom scores overall (49.4% and 52.7%, respectively; P = 0.332) and at every weekly time point (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences between TAA and FP in any individual symptom score at any time point except week 2 (FP provided greater reduction in sneezing, P = 0.046). No significant difference was found between groups in overall occurrence of specific treatment-related side effects. Overall Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were similar for TAA and FP at end-of-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite differing molecular potencies, FP and TAA demonstrated comparable efficacy in the treatment of SAR, and produced similar occurrences of specific treatment-related side effects and similar improvements in overall patient HRQL.