Scholarlink

<p>Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most prevalent chronic immunologic disease worldwide, significantly affecting patients’ quality of life and day-to-day functioning. Intranasal corticosteroids are considered the most effective pharmacological agents for AR, but supportive therapies like nasal saline sprays can also be utilised. The study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy of intranasal fluticasone furoate spray and normal saline spray in patients with allergic rhinitis, with special reference to symptom scores, nasal endoscopic findings, and Absolute Eosinophil Count (AEC). This prospective, randomized comparative study was conducted on 140 patients with clinical features of allergic rhinitis at a tertiary care center in Central India over one year. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 received fluticasone furoate nasal spray and Group 2 received isotonic nasal saline spray. Evaluation was performed at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks using Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Diagnostic Nasal Endoscopy (DNE) scores, and AEC levels. Group 1 (FF group) showed significantly better outcomes in all parameters. Fluticasone furoate is significantly more effective than nasal normal saline spray in reducing nasal symptoms, endoscopic signs, and eosinophilic inflammation in allergic rhinitis. Its strong anti-inflammatory properties and favourable safety profile make it a preferred first-line treatment for patients seeking long-term symptom control.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“A Comparative Study to Assess the Role of Intranasal Fluticasone Furoate Spray and Normal Saline Spray in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月30日

查看全文
  • Shivanshu Gupta,
  • Yamini Gupta,
  • Deepak Mahawar,
  • Taniya Sheoran,
  • Roli Vachhani

摘要

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most prevalent chronic immunologic disease worldwide, significantly affecting patients’ quality of life and day-to-day functioning. Intranasal corticosteroids are considered the most effective pharmacological agents for AR, but supportive therapies like nasal saline sprays can also be utilised. The study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy of intranasal fluticasone furoate spray and normal saline spray in patients with allergic rhinitis, with special reference to symptom scores, nasal endoscopic findings, and Absolute Eosinophil Count (AEC). This prospective, randomized comparative study was conducted on 140 patients with clinical features of allergic rhinitis at a tertiary care center in Central India over one year. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 received fluticasone furoate nasal spray and Group 2 received isotonic nasal saline spray. Evaluation was performed at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks using Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Diagnostic Nasal Endoscopy (DNE) scores, and AEC levels. Group 1 (FF group) showed significantly better outcomes in all parameters. Fluticasone furoate is significantly more effective than nasal normal saline spray in reducing nasal symptoms, endoscopic signs, and eosinophilic inflammation in allergic rhinitis. Its strong anti-inflammatory properties and favourable safety profile make it a preferred first-line treatment for patients seeking long-term symptom control.