Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:00:38.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

PP06 Clinical Effectiveness Of Fluticasone Furoate Nasal Spray For Perennial Allergic Rhinitis In Children: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2022

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Although previous studies suggest that fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) is superior to placebo in reducing symptoms in adolescents and adults with allergic rhinitis (AR), there is still uncertainty about its clinical effectiveness in the pediatric population. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of FFNS, compared with placebo, in reducing nasal symptoms in children with perennial AR.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted of studies identified from the MEDLINE and Embase databases that were published up to January 2021. The population of interest was patients aged 2 to 12 years with perennial AR. Included studies were limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FFNS (110 μg once daily) with placebo. The outcomes of interest included the reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) and safety. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4. The Cohen’s guideline was used to assess the minimum clinically important difference for rTNSS; that is, if the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and the lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) exceed -0.5, the treatment effect was considered clinically significant.

Results

Three RCTs (959 pediatric patients) were included. One study evaluated the short-term use of FFNS, one evaluated the long-term use of FFNS, and the third evaluated both the short- and long-term use of FFNS. FFNS produced a statistically significant reduction in rTNSS (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.63, -0.08; p<0.001) relative to placebo in the long-term treatment studies, but not in the short-term studies. However, since the mean reduction did not reach the minimum clinically important difference (SMD -0.5), these results were not considered clinically relevant. The safety outcomes for FFNS were similar to placebo.

Conclusions

The currently available evidence suggests that FFNS does not produce a meaningful clinical effect on nasal symptoms in children with perennial AR, compared with placebo. In the past decade, however, some guidelines have unequivocally endorsed this treatment.

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press