Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 microg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The efficacy of nasal antihistamines (NAHs) for allergic rhinitis (AR) is comparable with or better than second-generation oral antihistamines, with faster onset of action and greater effect on congestion. Limited data suggest that NAHs may be equivalent to intranasal corticosteroids at reducing the full range of nasal seasonal AR (SAR) symptoms, including congestion. The efficacy of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.) for symptoms of SAR was compared with fluticasone 50 microg nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril q.d.) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 2-week noninferiority trial. A total of 130 symptomatic patients were randomized to treatment and they recorded nasal and ocular allergy symptom scores b.i.d. (morning and evening) in a diary. Both treatments reduced reflective and instantaneous assessments of nasal and ocular symptoms from baseline throughout the 2-week study period (p < 0.05). The reflective total nasal symptom score (the primary efficacy variable) decreased by an average of -45.4% for patients treated with olopatadine 0.6% and by -47.4% for those treated with fluticasone; statistical significance favoring olopatadine was demonstrated at day 1. No significant between-treatment differences were determined for the average 2-week percent changes from baseline for congestion, runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and ocular symptoms, although olopatadine had a faster onset of action for reducing all symptoms. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Olopatadine and fluticasone nasal sprays both reduced nasal and ocular SAR symptoms with no significant between-treatment differences except for a faster and greater onset of action with olopatadine.