title: First-line treatment of seasonal (ragweed) rhinoconjunctivitis. A randomized management trial comparing a nasal steroid spray and a nonsedating antihistamine.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine whether better health-related quality of life (HRQL) is achieved by initiating treatment of seasonal (ragweed) rhinoconjunctivitis (hay fever) with a nasal steroid (fluticasone) backed up by a nonsedating antihistamine (terfenadine) or whether it is better to start with the antihistamine and add the nasal steroid when necessary.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized, nonblind, parallel-group management study during the 6 weeks of the ragweed pollen season in 1995.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixty-one adults with ragweed pollen hay fever recruited from patients who had participated in previous clinical studies and from those who responded to notices in the local media.
  
  
  METHODS
  Southern Ontario.
  
  
  METHODS
  Nasal steroid group: 200 micrograms of fluticasone nasal spray when needed (up to 400 micrograms/d) starting about 1 week before the ragweed pollen season and continued throughout, with 1 to 2 tablets of terfenadine daily (maximum 120 mg/d) if needed. Antihistamine group: 1 60-mg tablet of terfenadine when needed (maximum 120 mg/d) starting about 1 week before the ragweed pollen season and continued throughout, with 200-400 micrograms/d of fluticasone nasal spray (maximum 400 micrograms/d) if needed.
  
  
  METHODS
  HRQL before, at the height of and toward the end of the ragweed pollen season; HRQL was measured using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnáire.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Overall, HRQL tended to be better in the group of patients whose first-line treatment was with fluticasone (p = 0.052), but the difference between the 2 groups was small and not clinically important. Just over half (52% [16/31]) of the patients in the fluticasone group did not need additional help with terfenadine, whereas only 13% (4/30) of those in the terfenadine group did not need additional help with fluticasone (p = 0.002).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is little difference in the therapeutic benefit between the 2 approaches for the treatment of ragweed pollen hay fever. Therefore, the approach to treatment should be based on patient preference, convenience and cost. Regardless of the treatment, at least 50% of patients will need to take both types of medication in combination to control symptoms adequately.
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, Ont. juniper@fhs.mcmaster.ca
authors.forename: E F
authors.initials: EF
authors.lastname: Juniper
authors.forename: G H
authors.initials: GH
authors.lastname: Guyatt
authors.forename: P J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Ferrie
authors.forename: L E
authors.initials: LE
authors.lastname: Griffith
mesh_terms: D000280:Administration, Inhalation; D000284:Administration, Oral; D000328:Adult; D000730:Androstadienes / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D018926:Anti-Allergic Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D003231:Conjunctivitis / Q000188:drug therapy; D005260:Female; D000068298:Fluticasone; D006634:Histamine H1 Antagonists / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011788:Quality of Life; D006255:Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal / Q000188:drug therapy*; D016593:Terfenadine / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D000730:Androstadienes; D018926:Anti-Allergic Agents; D006634:Histamine H1 Antagonists; D016593:Terfenadine; D000068298:Fluticasone