Skip to main content
Primary Care Respiratory Journal: Journal of the General Practice Airways Group logoLink to Primary Care Respiratory Journal: Journal of the General Practice Airways Group
. 2010 Jun 22;19(3):266–273. doi: 10.4104/pcrj.2010.00040

Observational study comparing intranasal mometasone furoate with oral antihistamines for rhinitis and asthma

David Price 1,*, Linda Kemp 2, Erika Sims 2, Julie von Ziegenweidt 2, Prakash Navaratnam 3, Amanda J Lee 4, Alison Chisholm 2, Elizabeth V Hillyer 2, Gokul Gopalan 5
PMCID: PMC6602242  PMID: 20571732

Abstract

Aims:

Retrospective database study comparing upper and lower airway-related outcomes for patients with rhinitis and co-morbid asthma receiving mometasone furoate — an intranasal corticosteroid with low systemic bioavailability — or an oral antihistamine.

Methods:

395 patients prescribed intranasal mometasone were matched on 10 demographic and respiratory-related criteria in a 1:2 ratio to 790 patients prescribed oral antihistamine. Asthma and rhinitis control were assessed over one year using predefined composite proxy measures.

Results:

Asthma control was achieved by 309/395 (78.2%) versus 580/790 (73.4%; p=0.071) patients in the mometasone and antihistamine cohorts, respectively. Rhinitis control was achieved by 293 (74.2%) versus 539 (68.2%; p=0.035), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for antihistamines, relative to mometasone, were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.52–0.98) for achieving asthma control and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.56–0.97) for achieving rhinitis control.

Conclusions:

Patients with rhinitis and co-morbid asthma initiating rhinitis therapy achieved significantly better upper as well as lower airway outcomes with intranasal mometasone than with oral antihistamine.

Keywords: antihistamine, asthma, control, mometasone furoate, one airway, rhinitis

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (665.3 KB).

Footnotes

David Price has consultant arrangements with Aerocrine, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dey Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Schering-Plough, and Teva. He or his team have received grants and research support for research in respiratory disease from the following organisations: UK National Health Service, Aerocrine, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Schering Plough, and Teva. He has spoken for Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, Pfizer, and Teva. Linda Kemp has no conflict of interest to declare.

Erika Sims has worked on projects funded by Schering Plough, Merck & Co., Inc., and Teva, and has received funding to attend conferences. Julie von Ziegenweidt has no conflict of interest to declare.

Prakash Navaratnam has a consultant arrangement with Merck & Co., Inc. He is the CEO of Eympres Research LLC, Hilliard, Ohio, USA.

Amanda J. Lee receives payment for statistical consultancy through the independent research company, Thorpe Respiratory Research. Alison Chisholm has no conflict of interest to declare.

Elizabeth V. Hillyer has done freelance writing work for Merck & Co., Inc., Aerocrine, and Teva Santé and received reimbursement for work-related travel expenses from Thorpe Respiratory Research and Merck. Gokul Gopalan is an employee of Merck & Co., Inc.


Articles from Primary Care Respiratory Journal: Journal of the General Practice Airways Group are provided here courtesy of Primary Care Respiratory Society UK/Macmillan Publishers Limited

RESOURCES