S'abonner

Early treatment of perennial rhinitis with budesonide or cetirizine and its effect on long-term outcome - 01/09/11

Doi : 10.1067/mai.2002.121703 
Juhani Rinne, MD, PhD a, Markku Simola, MD, PhD a, Henrik Malmberg, MD, PhD b, Tari Haahtela, MD, PhD a
a the Division of Allergy, Skin and Allergy Hospital Helsinki, Finland 
b Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki. Helsinki, Finland 

Abstract

Background: Perennial rhinitis is a common disease that has many similarities with bronchial asthma. Early treatment with inhaled steroids has improved asthma symptoms, lung function, and bronchial hyperreactivity, but it has not been studied in perennial rhinitis. Objective: The main objective was to determine whether early introduction of long-term daily intranasal steroid treatment would have a positive effect on the clinical course and outcome of perennial rhinitis compared with the effect of an antihistamine. A secondary objective was to compare the clinical efficacy of intranasal budesonide and oral cetirizine. Methods: One hundred forty-three adult patients with newly detected perennial allergic or nonallergic eosinophilic rhinitis of 1 to 3 years’ duration were randomized to receive budesonide dry powder, 400 μg (delivered dose of 280 μg) intranasally, or cetirizine, 10 mg orally, once daily for 1 year. At the end of the double-blind treatment period, medication was stopped, and the patients were followed for another year, during which time they could use 14-day courses of intranasal budesonide as needed to control rhinitis relapses. The main outcome measures were the time to first relapse and the number of relapses during the second year. Nasal symptom scores, nasal smear eosinophilia, and nasal peak expiratory flow were used to compare the clinical efficacy of the 2 treatments. Results: During the randomized phase of the study, budesonide was significantly more effective than cetirizine in relieving nasal symptoms. Nasal peak expiratory flow improved significantly in budesonide-treated patients compared with in patients receiving cetirizine. After discontinuation of randomized treatment, 38% of budesonide-treated and 56% of cetirizine-treated patients had a relapse within the first month (P = .04). The median time to first relapse was longer in budesonide-treated patients than in cetirizine-treated patients (62 vs 20 days), although the difference was not significant. Fourteen-day courses of budesonide provided effective control of relapses; the mean number of relapses was 4.0 versus 5.4 in the groups previously treated with budesonide or cetirizine, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated throughout the study. Conclusions: Budesonide is significantly more effective than cetirizine in controlling perennial rhinitis. After stopping treatment, budesonide better prevents relapses for 1 to 2 months compared with cetirizine. Periodic therapy with budesonide may be sufficient to control symptoms in most patients who have relapses. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;109:426-32.)

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Antihistamine, budesonide, cetirizine, corticosteroids, early intervention, perennial rhinitis

Abbreviations : nPEF:


Plan


 Supported by AstraZeneca R&D, Lund, Sweden, and Helsinki University Central Hospital grant 9303.
 Reprint requests: Juhani Rinne, MD, PhD, Skin and Allergy Hospital, Box 160, 00029 HUS, Finland.


© 2002  Mosby, Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 109 - N° 3

P. 426-432 - mars 2002 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Rhinitis as an independent risk factor for adult-onset asthma
  • Stefano Guerra, Duane L. Sherrill, Fernando D. Martinez, Robert A. Barbee
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Inhaled corticosteroids plus salmeterol or montelukast: Effects on resource utilization and costs
  • David A. Stempel, John C. O’Donnell, Jay W. Meyer

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.