What is the difference between fluticasone and mometasone

Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis meeting all of the followings. Hide glossary Glossary Study record managers: refer to the Data Element Definitions if submitting registration or results information. Search for terms. Save this study. Warning You have reached the maximum number of saved studies Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.

Results First Posted : July 12, Last Update Posted : May 20, Study Description. This study was conducted to see if mometasone nasal spray is efficaceous for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Patients will be randomized to active mometasone, placebo mometasone, active fluticasone, or placebo fluticasone. Resource links provided by the National Library of Medicine Drug Information available for: Fluticasone propionate Mometasone furoate Fluticasone Mometasone Mometasone furoate monohydrate Fluticasone furoate.

FDA Resources. Arms and Interventions. Placebo to mometasone furoate nasal spray, indistinguishable from mometasone furoate nasal spray. Patients in this arm take 2 sprays per nostril once a day for 2 weeks. Background: Mometasone furoate Nasonex , in a new once-daily aqueous nasal spray formulation, has been shown to be as effective and well-tolerated as twice-daily beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray in treating symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial rhinitis.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of mometasone furoate to placebo and of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, all treatments administered once-daily, in patients with perennial rhinitis. Methods: This was a 3-month, randomized, double-blind, double dummy, parallel group study in patients, aged 12 to 77 years, at 25 centers in Canada, Latin America, and Europe.

Patients allergic to at least one perennial allergen, with confirmed allergy history, skin test positivity, and moderate to severe symptomatology, were eligible to receive one of the following treatments, once daily in the morning: mometasone furoate micrograms, fluticasone propionate micrograms, or placebo. Overall adverse effect incidence was The most common adverse effect was pharyngitis. There were no reports of nasal pain or epistaxis during this study. Patients were permitted rescue treatment tablet loratadine at 10 mg during the course of this study if their symptoms were not controlled with medications.

For the mometasone furoate NS group the mean tablet taken per patient was 3. The fluticasone furoate NS group, on the other hand, only needed 1. The overall mean tablets taken for mometasone furoate NS group were 3. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is often used interchangeably with allergic rhinitis because ocular symptoms are usually present in allergic rhinitis. A study in Switzerland reported that only Our mean baseline TOSS was 3. This reflected the mild ocular symptoms experienced by the majority of our patients.

Tolerance due to constant exposure to dust mites, which is the most common 15 allergen for perennial allergic rhinitis in our country, may explain the mild symptoms.

Another study in Europe on perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis that used the same 4-point categorical scale found a relatively low baseline ocular score of 4. This suggests that ocular symptoms in patients with persistent allergic rhinoconjunctivitis tend to be less severe 18 and less prevalent than seasonal allergic rhinitis. There has been mounting evidence that supports INS as a single-modality treatment for both nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Although fluticasone furoate NS is thought to be pharmacologically superior to other INSs it did not translate into superior clinical efficacy in this study. Triamcinolone acetonide NS was found to be equally as effective as fluticasone propionate and loratadine.

A study by Ratner et al. Although there may still be some contradictory evidence, INS remains a powerful pharmacologic tool for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Both treatment groups attained optimal efficacy after 1 month of treatment together with improvement of ocular symptoms.

Krouse et al. Based on our experience, this may also be applied for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. However, evidence only supports use of INSs for ocular symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Primary allergic conjunctivitis is treated with antihistamines or mast stabilizing eye drops. The overall RQOLQ scores were significantly improved after 1 month with further improvement after 2 months in both groups. A population study performed found that the average overall RQOL score for patients without any allergic rhinitis was 0. Therefore, INS improves quality of life but not to the normal population score even after 8 weeks of treatment.

Furthermore, patients with persistent allergic rhinitis had been found to have poorer quality of life compared with the intermittent group. Objective assessment was included in this study to support any difference in efficacy using acoustic rhinometry. The MCA1 usually corresponds with the anterior portion of the inferior turbinate because it measures the most narrow portion between 1 and 3 cm from the edge of the vestibule, which represents the valve area.

The lower the MCA indicates a higher degree of nasal obstruction. Patients with mucosal disease will have a lower MCA, which agrees with our study where mean baseline MCA1 for our patients were 0. Improvement in MCA1 translates into reduction of nasal congestion.

Although there was a statistically significant difference between mometasone furoate NS and fluticasone furoate NS in reducing MCA1 in the 1st month, it was not supported by the subjective assessment. The limitation of this study was the small number of patients because of difficulty recruiting patients with persistent eye symptoms with allergic rhinitis. There were also a large number of patients with only mild ocular symptoms in this study with high variability.

The majority of these patients experienced mild ocular symptoms. Both intranasal steroids subjectively and objectively improved allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Therefore, both can be suitably used as a single modality treatment for both nasal and ocular symptoms. The authors thank the members of the Pharmaceutical Department at the University of Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center who kindly assisted in the blinding procedure of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare pertaining to this article.

National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Allergy Rhinol Providence v. Allergy Rhinol Providence. Hamizan Aneeza , M. Gendeh , M. Hamizan Aneeza. Balwant S. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Corresponding author. Address correspondence to Aneeza W. Hamizan, M. Any use of the work other then as authorized under this license or copyright law is prohibited.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis denotes both nasal and ocular manifestation of allergy, which may be solely treated with intranasal steroid. Keywords: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, fluticasone furoate, intranasal steroids, mometasone furoate, ocular symptoms, perennial allergic rhinitis.