ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:To investigate clinical efficacy and safety of oral loratadine combined with physiological seawater na-sal irrigation in the treatment of intermittent allergic rhinitis. METHODS:Totally 300 patients with intermittent allergic rhinitis were chosen from the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University during Jan. 2013-Jun. 2015,and then divided into group A,B,C ac-cording to lottery method,with 100 cases in each group. Group A was given Loratadine tablets 10 mg,po,qd. Group B received nasal irrigation with physiological seawater nasal spray,every morning and evening. Group C was given oral loratadine combined with physiological seawater nasal irrigation. Treatment courses of 3 groups lasted for 28 d. Clinical efficiencies of 3 groups were compared as well as symptom and sign scores,respiration function indexes and inflammatory factor levels before and after treat-ment,and the clinical recurrences were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS:The total response rates of group A,B,C were 80.00%,78.00%,96.00%,respectively,and that of group C was significantly higher than that of group A and B,with statistical significance(P0.05). After treatment,symptom and sign scores,the rates of PEF diur-nal variation,TNF-α,INF-γ and IL-4 in 3 groups were significantly lower than before treatment,and the levels of PEF and IL-12 were significantly higher than before treatment. Above indexes of group C were significantly better than those of group A and B, with statistical significance (P0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Oral loratadine combined with physiological seawater nasal irrigation in treatment of intermittent allergic rhinitis can efficiently relieve the nasal symptoms and signs,improve expiratoryfunction,reduce the inflammatory response levels and be help-ful to reduce the long-term recurrence risk.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:To observe the effectiveness and safety of azelastine combined with fluticasone in the treatment of allergic rhinitis(AR). METHODS:A total of 135 AR patients were selected from 3 hospitals during Jan. 2015-Jul. 2016, and divided into azelastine group,fluticasone group and drug combination group according to random number table,with 45 cases in each group. On the basis of decongestant Oxymetazoline hydrochloride spray,azelastine group was given Azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray,1 spray each nostril,morning and night;fluticasone group was given Fluticasone propionate nasal spray,1 spray each nostril,morning and night;drug combination was given Azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray combined with Fluticasone propionate nasal spray,with the same usage and dose. Three groups were treated for consecutive 30 d. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total ocular symptom score (TOSS) decline indexes,nasal minimal cross-sectional area (NMCA),total nasal resistance(TNR)and the occurrence of ADR were compared among 3 groups. RESULTS:Some pa-tients were withdrawal from the trial;finally,127 patients were included in full analysis set,and 130 patients were included in safety set. After treatment,TNSS decline index of drug combination group was significantly higher than azelastine group and fluticasone group,with statistical significance(P0.05). Before treatment, 3 groups suffered from nasal ventilation disorder to different extents,but there was no statistical significance in TNR or NMCA among 3 groups(P>0.05). After treatment,NMCA and TNR at 75,150 Pa of 3 groups were significantly lower than before,and TNR of drug combination group was significantly lower than azelastine group and fluticasone group,with statisti-cal significance(P0.05). There was no statistical significance in the incidence of ADR among 3 groups(P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Both azelastine and fluticasone can effec-tively relieve nasal symptom as well as improve nasal ventilation disorder in AR patients;therapeutic efficacy of drug combi-nation is better than single drug,and it doesn't increase the incidence of ADR.