International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2020
Efficacy of the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone in patients who remain symptomatic on standard nasal steroid sprays.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Senior Brent A, Schlosser Rodney J, Bosso John, Soler Zachary M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Standard nasal steroid sprays are often first-line treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), but many patients remain symptomatic despite their use. The exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) has been shown to be efficacious in mixed populations of symptomatic patients, but the question remains whether benefits would be similar in those already on traditional steroid sprays. The goal of this study was to compare EDS-FLU treatment outcomes in patients who have previously failed nasal steroids.
METHODS: Using pooled data from the NAVIGATE I and II trials, EDS-FLU efficacy was compared in the subgroup treated with a conventional nasal steroid at trial entry (mean duration, ≈3 years) to efficacy in the overall study population. Sensitivity analyses were performed for more restrictive definitions of the subgroup changing from prior standard nasal steroids.
RESULTS: Of 482 total subjects, 218 (45.2%) reported using standard nasal steroid sprays at entry (mean duration, 1051 days). Across multiple outcome measures, improvements for "switchers" receiving EDS-FLU (least squares mean change from baseline vs EDS plus placebo) were comparable with improvements in the overall population. For EDS-FLU 372 μg, comparable improvements were observed in congestion (-0.73 vs -0.62), rhinorrhea (-0.71 vs -0.57), facial pain/pressure (-0.48 vs -0.41), and sense of smell (-0.35 vs -0.30) at week 4 and 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (-21.01 vs -20.52), Patient Global Impression of Change, and other outcomes at week 16. Results for EDS-FLU 186 μg were similar.
CONCLUSION: EDS-FLU comparably improves symptoms, irrespective of whether patients are symptomatic while using conventional nasal steroids before treatment.
METHODS: Using pooled data from the NAVIGATE I and II trials, EDS-FLU efficacy was compared in the subgroup treated with a conventional nasal steroid at trial entry (mean duration, ≈3 years) to efficacy in the overall study population. Sensitivity analyses were performed for more restrictive definitions of the subgroup changing from prior standard nasal steroids.
RESULTS: Of 482 total subjects, 218 (45.2%) reported using standard nasal steroid sprays at entry (mean duration, 1051 days). Across multiple outcome measures, improvements for "switchers" receiving EDS-FLU (least squares mean change from baseline vs EDS plus placebo) were comparable with improvements in the overall population. For EDS-FLU 372 μg, comparable improvements were observed in congestion (-0.73 vs -0.62), rhinorrhea (-0.71 vs -0.57), facial pain/pressure (-0.48 vs -0.41), and sense of smell (-0.35 vs -0.30) at week 4 and 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (-21.01 vs -20.52), Patient Global Impression of Change, and other outcomes at week 16. Results for EDS-FLU 186 μg were similar.
CONCLUSION: EDS-FLU comparably improves symptoms, irrespective of whether patients are symptomatic while using conventional nasal steroids before treatment.