A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SENSORY ATTRIBUTES AND EFFICACY BETWEEN INTRANASAL CICLESONIDE AND FLUTICASONE PROPIONATE IN ALLERGIC RHINITIS

MADHU YASARAPU; AMMAR KHALID; SHUBHAM JAJU; SAMAR MAHMOOD

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2025v18i10.55701

Authors

MADHU YASARAPU Department of Pharmacology, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
AMMAR KHALID Department of Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India.
SHUBHAM JAJU Department of Pharmacology, Pacific Institute of Medical Sciences, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. 4Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7949-2228
SAMAR MAHMOOD Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2025v18i10.55701

Keywords:

Allergic rhinitis, Fluticasone propionate,, Ciclesonide,, Sensory attributes, Total nasal symptom score

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy, sensory tolerability, and overall patient preference between fluticasone propionate (FLP) and ciclesonide (CIC) in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR).

Methods: An observational, crossover study was conducted at a tertiary ENT hospital in Hyderabad from December 2020 to November 2022. A total of 120 adult patients (n=120, 60 per sequence) with moderate-to-severe AR (total nasal symptom score [TNSS] ≥6) were enrolled. Participants received a single intranasal dose of FLP 200 mcg or CIC in a randomized sequence with a 30‑min washout period before crossover. TNSS scores were recorded at baseline and 10 min post‑dose. Sensory attributes were evaluated using a validated 7‑point Likert scale, and overall treatment preference was recorded after both sprays. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences v26, with p<0.05 considered significant.

Results: Both sprays produced a significant reduction in TNSS within 10 min (median reduction: 5 points in both groups, p<0.001). Between‑group comparison showed no significant difference in total TNSS change (p=0.774). Ocular itching improved significantly with FLP compared to CIC (19.2% vs. 12.5%, p=0.0442), while other nasal symptoms (sneezing, congestion, nasal itch, and rhinorrhea) showed no significant differences. Sensory evaluation revealed that FLP was preferred for soothing feel (58.3% vs. 22.5%, p<0.0001) and satisfying scent (55% vs. 8.3%, p<0.001), whereas aftertaste and throat sensations were slightly better with CIC. Overall, 59.4% of patients preferred FLP, 28.3% CIC, and 12.3% had no preference.

Conclusion: FLP and CIC are both effective and well‑tolerated for AR management. Fluticasone showed marginally superior ocular symptom relief and higher patient preference, while CIC offered slightly better throat tolerability. Tailoring intranasal corticosteroid selection to patient‑reported sensory experience may enhance adherence and clinical outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Moscato G, Siracusa A. Rhinitis guidelines and implications for occupational rhinitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;9(2):110- 5. doi: 10.1097/aci.0b013e328328cfe7, PMID 19326505

2. Hamid WU, Sumbria D, Ali I, Ahmad R. A comparative study to assess the efficacy of fluticasone and mometasone in allergic rhinitis. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;6(9):1587-91. doi: 10.18203/ issn.2454-5929.ijohns20203503

3. Agrawal S, Pearce N, Ebrahim S. Prevalence and risk factors for self-reported asthma in an adult Indian population: A cross-sectional survey. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013 Feb;17(2):275-82. doi: 10.5588/ ijtld.12.0438, PMID 23317966

4. Min YG. The pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2010;2(2):65-76. doi: 10.4168/ aair.2010.2.2.65, PMID 20358020

5. Arefin P, Habib MS, Ahmed NU, Rahim MA, Ibrahim M, Bhattacharjee SC, et al. Allergic rhinitis and importance of fexofenadine HCl sustained release microsphere as its treatment approach. Int J App Pharm. 2022;14(1):13-7. doi: 10.22159/ijap.2022v14i1.40369

6. Sankeshwari S, Gangadharappa HV, Spandana AS, Eliyas A, Thirumaleshwar S, Harsha Vardhan PV. A review on the solid oral dosage form for pediatrics, regulatory aspects, challenges involved during the formulation, and toxicity of the excipients used in pediatric formulation. Int J App Pharm. 2023;15(3):12-27. doi: 10.22159/ ijap.2023v15i3.47313

7. Mirmoezzi MS, Yazdi MS, Gholami O. Comparative study on the efficacy of mometasone and Fluticasone Nasal Sprays for treatment of allergic rhinitis. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2017;9(3):211-4. doi: 10.22159/ ijpps.2017v9i3.15958

8. Varshney J, Varshney H, Dutta SK, Hazra A. Comparison of sensory attributes and immediate efficacy of intranasal ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate in allergic rhinitis: A randomized controlled trial. Indian J Pharmacol. 2012;44(5):550-4. doi: 10.4103/0253- 7613.100365, PMID 23112411

9. Tran NP, Vickery J, Blaiss MS. Management of rhinitis: Allergic and non-allergic. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2011;3(3):148-56. doi: 10.4168/aair.2011.3.3.148, PMID 21738880

10. Rodrigo GJ, Neffen H. Efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray vs. placebo for the treatment of ocular and nasal symptoms of allergic rhinitis: A systematic review. Clin Exp Allergy. 2011;41(2):160-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03654.x, PMID 21121980

11. Jaumotte JD, Franks AL, Bargerstock EM, Kisanga EP, Menden HL, Ghersi A, et al. Ciclesonide activates glucocorticoid signaling in neonatal rat lung but does not trigger adverse effects in the cortex and cerebellum. Neurobiol Dis. 2021;156:105422. doi: 10.1016/j. nbd.2021.105422, PMID 34126164

12. Biggadike K. Fluticasone furoate/fluticasone propionate - different drugs with different properties. Clin Respir J. 2011;5(3):183-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-699X.2011.00244.x, PMID 21569222

13. Bousquet J, Toumi M, Sousa-Pinto B, Anto JM, Bedbrook A, Czarlewski W, et al. The allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) approach of value-added medicines: As-needed treatment in allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022;10(11):2878-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.07.020, PMID 35934308

14. Buhl R, Vinkler I, Magyar P, Györi Z, Rybacki C, Middle MV, et al. Comparable efficacy of ciclesonide once daily versus fluticasone propionate twice daily in asthma. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2006;19(6):404- 12. doi: 10.1016/j.pupt.2005.10.003, PMID 16310388

15. Ratner P, Van Bavel J, Mohar D, Jacobs RL, Hampel F, Howland W, et al. Efficacy of daily intranasal fluticasone propionate on ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114(2):141-7. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2014.11.012, PMID 25624132

16. Meltzer EO. Formulation considerations of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;98(1):12- 21. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60854-X, PMID 17225715