Publications by authors named "Ravindra Mittal"

13 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Long-term Persistence of Immunogenicity After Primary Vaccination and Response to Booster Vaccination With Typhoid Conjugate Vaccine: Results of a Phase IV Extension Study.

Indian Pediatr 2022 May 28;59(5):388-392. Epub 2022 Mar 28.

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

Objective: To evaluate the persistence of antibodies three years after primary vaccination with typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) of either Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (Cadila-TCV) or Bharat Biotech International Ltd. (Bharat-TCV) administered in a previous phase II/III study, and to study the booster dose response to Cadila-TCV.

Methods: This was an open-label, phase IV extension study conducted in tertiary care and multispecialty hospitals in India. 112 subjects (Cadila-TCV-57, Bharat-TCV-55) who had participated in previous study were enrolled. Of these, eligible subjects received a single-dose of Cadila-TCV and were followed-up for 28 days post-booster. Primary outcome was persistence of antibodies 3 years after primary vaccination and seroconversion (≥4-fold rise in antibody titre from baseline) 28 days post-booster. Safety was based on reported adverse events (AEs) post-booster.

Results: The baseline GMT reported in the current study was significantly higher than pre-vaccination GMT reported in the previous study. 89/112 (79.5%) subjects had antibody titer ≥10 IU/mL at baseline; eligible subjects (n=17) who had baseline antibody titre <10 IU/mL were administered booster dose. All the vaccinated subjects showed seroconversion post-booster. The GMTs reported at 10 days and 28 days post-booster were significantly higher as compared to GMTs reported after primary vaccination in previous study. 4 (23.5%) vaccinated subjects reported 9 AEs; all were solicited and of mild/moderate intensity.

Conclusions: There was a significant persistence of immunogenicity after primary vaccination with both the TCVs, and robust immune response after booster vaccination with Cadila-TCV.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
May 2022

Efficacy and safety of avanafil as compared with sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: A randomized, double blind, multicenter clinical trial.

Int J Urol 2022 04 26;29(4):351-359. Epub 2022 Jan 26.

Department of Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs, Zydus Healthcare Limited, India.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of avanafil as compared with sildenafil in the management of patients with erectile dysfunction.

Methods: It was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, two-arm, active-controlled, parallel, multicenter, non-inferiority clinical study carried out in patients with erectile dysfunction for at least 3 months and International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function domain score of <26 at enrolment.

Results: A total of 220 patients were randomized to receive either avanafil tablets 100 mg or sildenafil tablets 50 mg in 1:1 ratio. After 4 weeks of treatment, 40.0% of patients in the avanafil group and 45.6% of patients in the sildenafil group required dose escalation to a high dose (avanafil 200 mg/sildenafil 100 mg). The difference in the mean change of International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function score from baseline in the two groups increased from week 4 (1.1, 95% confidence interval -0.2 to 2.5) to week 8 (1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.1-2.7) and week 12 (2.1, 95% confidence interval 0.8-3.5), showing non-inferiority at week 4, and superiority at week 8 and week 12. Avanafil showed a faster onset of action as shown by a significantly better response to modified Sexual Encounter Profile 1 in the avanafil group (84.8%) as compared with that in the sildenafil group (28.2%; P < 0.001). Both avanafil and sildenafil were well tolerated by all the patients in the study; the most common adverse event reported during the study was headache in both the groups.

Conclusion: Avanafil is superior to sildenafil in improving the International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function domain score at the end of 12 weeks of treatment with the added advantage of faster onset of action.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iju.14785DOI Listing
April 2022

Safety and Immunogenicity of a DNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (ZyCoV-D): Results of an open-label, non-randomized phase I part of phase I/II clinical study by intradermal route in healthy subjects in India.

EClinicalMedicine 2021 Aug 17;38:101020. Epub 2021 Jul 17.

Zydus Discovery DMCC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Background: ZyCoV-D is a DNA vaccine candidate, which comprises a plasmid DNA carrying spike-S gene of SARS-CoV-2 virus along with gene coding for signal peptide. The spike(S) region includes the receptor-binding domain (RBD), which binds to the human angiotensin converting Enzyme (ACE)-2 receptor and mediates the entry of virus inside the cell.

Methods: We conducted a single-center, open-label, non-randomized, Phase 1 trial in India between July 2020 and October 2020. Healthy adults aged between 18 and 55 years were sequentially enrolled and allocated to one of four treatment arms in a dose escalation manner. Three doses of vaccine were administered 28 days apart and each subject was followed up for 28 days post third dose to evaluate safety and immunogenicity.

Findings: Out of 126 individuals screened for eligibility. Forty-eight subjects (mean age 34·9 years) were enrolled and vaccinated in the Phase 1 study Overall, 12/48 (25%) subjects reported at least one AE (i.e. combined solicited and unsolicited) during the study. There were no deaths or serious adverse events reported in Phase 1 of the study. The proportion of subjects who seroconverted based on IgG titers on day 84 was 4/11 (36·36%), 4/12 (33·33%), 10/10 (100·00%) and 8/10 (80·00%) in the treatment Arm 1 (1 mg: Needle), Arm 2 (1 mg: NFIS), Arm 3 (2 mg: Needle) and Arm 4 (2 mg: NFIS), respectively.

Interpretation: ZyCoV-D vaccine is found to be safe, well-tolerated and immunogenic in the Phase 1 trial. Our findings suggest that the DNA vaccine warrants further investigation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101020DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8285262PMC
August 2021

Immunogenicity and safety of the first indigenously developed Indian tetravalent influenza vaccine (split virion) in healthy children (6 months to 17 years of age): a randomized, multicenter, phase III clinical trial.

Hum Vaccin Immunother 2021 03 26;17(3):681-689. Epub 2020 Aug 26.

Department of Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs, Cadila Healthcare Limited, India.

This phase III clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the Tetravalent Influenza Vaccine (Split virion) I.P. (TetIV), containing two strains each of influenza A and B, developed indigenously in the country for the first time by M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited, India for use in the pediatric population (6 months -17 years of age), and compare it to that of a licensed seasonal Trivalent Influenza Vaccine (TriIV) of Sanofi Pasteur India Private Limited, containing two influenza A and one influenza B strains. Three hundred six subjects of either sex, 6 months to 17 years of age, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TetIV or TriIV. Immunogenicity assessments (antibodies against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Phuket, and B/Brisbane) were performed using the hemagglutination inhibition assay at baseline and 28 days after the last vaccination. TetIV was found to fulfill the criteria set by the United States Food and Drug Administration on the requirements of clinical data for licensure of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines for the pediatric population. The seroconversion rates with TetIV were 94.6% for A/H1N1, 93.9% for A/H3N2, 91.2% for B/Brisbane, and 87.2% for B/Phuket strains. TetIV showed non-inferiority and superiority in immune response, as compared to TriIV, against the shared strains and an additional B strain, respectively. Both the vaccines were tolerated well by all the study participants, and an addition of the fourth strain in TetIV did not compromise the safety as compared to that of TriIV. The most common adverse event reported in both groups was fever.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2020.1794683DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7993130PMC
March 2021

Immunogenicity and Safety of Typhoid Conjugate Vaccine in Healthy Indian Subjects: A Randomized, Active-controlled, Comparative Clinical Trial.

Indian Pediatr 2020 07;57(7):625-630

Vaccine Manufacturing, Cadila Healthcare Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Objective: To compare the immunogenicity and safety of an investigational typhoid Vi conjugate vaccine (Test TCV) with a marketed typhoid Vi conjugate vaccine (Comparator TCV).

Design: Randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Tertiary care and multispecialty hospitals.

Participants: 240 healthy subjects of 6 months to 45 years. Pediatric (<18 years) subjects were enrolled after day 21 safety assessment of adult subjects.

Intervention: Participants received a single-dose of test TCV or comparator TCV at baseline and were followed up for 6 weeks post-vaccination.

Main Outcome Measure: Primary variable was to demonstrate non-inferiority of the test TCV with the comparator TCV for seroconversion post-vaccination (³4-fold rise in antibody titre). Secondary variables were seroconversion in the adult and pediatric cohorts, and geometric mean titre of antibodies while the safety was based on reported adverse events.

Results: A total of 117 subjects (Adult-58, Pediatric-59) and 119 subjects (Adult-60, Pediatric-59) in test and comparator group, respectively completed the study. The seroconversion rate with test TCV (overall-94.8%, adult-96.6% and pediatric-93.1%) was non-inferior to comparator TCV (overall-91.6%, adult-91.7% and pediatric-91.5%). The geometric mean titres of antibodies (EU/mL) at baseline (test TCV: overall-7.6, adult-10.0, and pediatric-5.7; and comparator TCV: overall-8.0, adult-12.0, and pediatric-5.3) and at end of study (test TCV: overall-1121.0, adult-1411.0 and pediatric-891.1; and comparator TCV: overall-1104.0, adult-1199.0 and pediatric-1014.0) were also comparable between the groups (P>0.05 for all). The most common adverse event was injection-site pain followed by fever in both the groups.

Conclusions: The immunogenicity and safety of test TCV is comparable to already marketed comparator TCV.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
July 2020

Immunogenicity and safety of the first indigenously developed Indian tetravalent influenza vaccine (split virion) in healthy adults ≥ 18 years of age: A randomized, multicenter, phase II / III clinical trial.

Hum Vaccin Immunother 2018 06 21;14(6):1362-1369. Epub 2018 Mar 21.

l Chief Scientific Officer, Vaccine Technology Centre, Cadila Healthcare Limited , Ahmedabad , India.

This phase II / III clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the Tetravalent Influenza vaccine (Split virion) I.P. (TetIV) developed indigenously in the country for the first time by M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited, India containing two influenza A and two influenza B strains, one of each, Yamagata (B/Phuket) and Victoria (B/Brisbane) lineage and also compare it to that of an licensed seasonal Trivalent Influenza vaccine (TriIV) of Sanofi Pasteur India Private Limited, containing the two influenza A and only the Yamagata lineage (B/Phuket) strain. Three hundred and fifty subjects of either sex, aged more than 18 years of age, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the TetIV or TriIV. Immunogenicity assessments (antibody against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Phuket and B/Brisbane) were done by Haemagglutination Inhibition assay at baseline and 21 d after vaccination. Solicited (local and systemic) and unsolicited adverse events were recorded for up to 42 d following vaccination. The TetIV was found to fulfill the criteria set by the European and the US regulatory authorities and WHO guidance on the requirements of clinical data for licensure of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines. The seroconversion rates with TetIV were 93.5% for A/H1N1, 90.0% for A/H3N2, 70.0% for B/Phuket and 82.9% for B/Brisbane strain. There was no significant difference in the seroconversion and seroprotection rates at day 21 for A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B/Phuket in the two groups while the TetIV was superior to the TrivIV for the seroconversion and the seroprotection rate for the B/Brisbane strain (Victoria lineage). Both the vaccines were well tolerated by all the study participants; addition of the fourth strain in the TetIV did not compromise the safety as compared to TriIV. The most common systemic adverse event reported in both the groups was headache followed by fever.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2018.1441654DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6037459PMC
June 2018

Immunogenicity and safety of a novel MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) containing the Edmonston-Zagreb measles strain, the Hoshino mumps strain, and the RA 27/3 rubella strain: Results of a randomized, comparative, active controlled phase III clinical trial.

Hum Vaccin Immunother 2017 07 31;13(7):1523-1530. Epub 2017 Mar 31.

k Vaccine Technology Centre , Cadila Healthcare Limited , India.

This phase III clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the single-dose and multi-dose formulations of a novel MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) developed by M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited, India (Cadila MMR vaccine), containing the Hoshino mumps strain, compared to that of an existing MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) developed by M/s Serum Institute of India Limited, India (Serum MMR vaccine). These two vaccines have similar measles and rubella strains, but different mumps strains (Hoshino in Cadila MMR vaccine, and L-Zagreb in Serum MMR vaccine). Three hundred and twenty-eight subjects of either sex, aged 15-18 months, were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the Cadila or Serum MMR vaccine. Immunogenicity assessments (IgG antibodies against measles, mumps, and rubella viruses) were done at baseline and 42 d after vaccination. Solicited (local and systemic) and unsolicited adverse events were recorded for up to 42 d following vaccination. The Cadila MMR vaccine was found to be non-inferior to the Serum MMR vaccine in terms of end-of-study proportion of subjects seropositive for anti-measles antibodies (100.0% in both groups), anti-mumps antibodies (94.5% vs. 94.0%), and anti-rubella antibodies (95.5% vs. 91.0%). Both vaccines were well tolerated by all study participants; the most common adverse event reported in both groups was fever, followed by rash. The results of this phase III clinical trial show that the novel Cadila MMR vaccine is non-inferior to the Serum MMR vaccine.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1302629DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5512778PMC
July 2017

Clindamycin 1% Nano-emulsion Gel Formulation for the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Results of a Randomized, Active Controlled, Multicentre, Phase IV Clinical Trial.

J Clin Diagn Res 2014 Aug 20;8(8):YC05-9. Epub 2014 Aug 20.

Senior Vice-President, Department of Regulatory Affairs, Cadila Healthcare Ltd . Ahmedabad, India .

Background: Acne vulgaris of the face is a common dermatological disease with a significant impact on the quality of life, psychosocial development as well as self-esteem of the patients. Nano emulsion gel formulations are said to have various advantages over the conventional formulations.

Aim: The present study was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of clindamycin with its conventional formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face.

Materials And Methods: This prospective, active controlled, multicentric, phase IV clinical trial evaluated the treatment of patients with acne vulgaris of the face by a nano emulsion gel formulation or conventional gel formulation of clindamycin (as phosphate) 1% locally applied twice daily for 12 weeks as per random allocation. Acne lesion counts (inflammatory, non-inflammatory and total) and severity grading were carried out on the monthly scheduled visits along with tolerability assessments.

Results: A total of 200 patients (97 males) were included for Intention to Treat analysis in the trial with 100 patients in each group. Reductions in total (69.3 vs. 51.9%; p<0.001), inflammatory (73.4 vs. 60.6%; p<0.005) and non inflammatory (65.1 vs. 43.7%; p<0.001) acne lesions were reported to be significantly greater with the nano-emulsion gel formulation as compared to the conventional gel formulation. Significantly more reduction in the mean acne severity score was noticeable with the nano-emulsion gel formulation (-1.6 ± 0.9 vs. -1.0 ± 0.8; p<0.001) than the comparator. A trend towards better safety profile of the nano emulsion gel formulation was reported.

Conclusion: In the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face, clindamycin nano emulsion gel formulation appears to be more effective than the conventional gel formulation and is also well tolerated.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/9111.4769DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190779PMC
August 2014

Ramosetron hydrochloride for the prevention of cancer chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: The Indian experience.

South Asian J Cancer 2014 Apr;3(2):132-7

Department of New Product Development, Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Background: Despite the advent of 5-HT3 antagonists, control of delayed gastrointestinal adverse events with cancer chemotherapy is still not optimal. This open label, active controlled, multicentric clinical trial was undertaken to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of ramosetron with ondansetron for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with emetogenic cancer chemotherapy in adult patients in India.

Materials And Methods: Enrolled patients received treatment with ramosetron hydrochloride 0.1 mg or ondansetron hydrochloride 4 mg tablets once daily in the morning for 5 days starting 1 h before the start of chemotherapy. Severity grades of nausea and vomiting were recorded on a daily basis for a period of 5 days and complete response rate (CRR) and effective rate (ER) were calculated. Clinical adverse events were recorded and hematological and biochemical investigations were performed for safety assessment.

Results: A total of 114 patients in ramosetron group and 100 patients in ondansetron group completed the study and were eligible for efficacy and safety analysis. CRR and ERs show that while ramosetron is non-inferior to ondansetron in the control of early nausea and vomiting (occurring during the first 24 h) after the treatment with emetogenic chemotherapy, it is superior to ondansetron in the control of delayed nausea and vomiting (occurring after the first 24 h). The proportion of patients achieving a cumulative complete response (for the entire study period) is significantly greater in ramosetron group as compared to ondansetron group (27.2% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.001). Ramosetron was well tolerated by all the study participants.

Conclusions: Ramosetron is significantly more effective than ondansetron for the control of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by emetogenic cancer chemotherapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2278-330X.130466DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4014645PMC
April 2014

A randomized, comparative, multicentric clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of zileuton extended-release tablets with montelukast sodium tablets in patients suffering from chronic persistent asthma.

Am J Ther 2013 Mar-Apr;20(2):154-62

Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs Department, Cadila Healthcare Ltd, Ahmedabad, India.

Leukotriene (LT) modifiers are anti-inflammatory drugs that are useful as an add-on therapy with first-line asthma-controller medications. This group includes LT synthesis inhibitors (eg, Zileuton) and receptor antagonists (eg, Montelukast), whose direct comparative clinical data are not available. This study was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of orally administered Zileuton extended-release (ER) with Montelukast sodium in patients suffering from chronic persistent asthma. Patients of 18-65 years of age with mild to moderate chronic stable asthma were randomized to treatment with Zileuton ER 2400 mg/d or Montelukast 10 mg/d for 12 weeks. Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and asthma symptoms (cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and shortness of breath each on a 4-point scale) were assessed on monthly scheduled out-patient visits. Safety assessments by clinical and laboratory parameters were carried out during the course of the study. Among 210 patients eligible for efficacy assessment, PEFR improved by 64.8 ± 52.8 (95% confidence interval: 54.8-74.7) L/min with Zileuton ER (n = 109) and 40.6 ± 47.5 (31.3-49.9) L/min with Montelukast (n = 101; P < 0.001), whereas percent improvements were 27.0% (22.6%-31.5%) versus 18.4% (14.1%-22.7%), respectively (P = 0.006). Zileuton ER lead to ≥12% PEFR improvements in 74 of 109 [67.9% (59.1%-76.7%)] patients, whereas the same was noted in 52 of 101 [51.5% (41.7%-61.2%)] patients receiving Montelukast (P = 0.015). The reduction in the mean overall symptom intensity score was also significantly better with Zileuton ER [-5.0 ± 2.1 (4.6-5.4) versus -4.2 ± 2.3 (3.8-4.7)] (P = 0.018); however, the same was not observed for the decline in the individual symptom scores. A lesser but not significantly different adverse event rate was reported in the Zileuton ER group than the Montelukast group with the commonest events being headache and gastrointestinal effects in both the groups. Thus, Zileuton ER seems to be more efficacious than Montelukast and well tolerated for the treatment of mild to moderate chronic persistent asthma in adult patient population. Further studies can elucidate the comparative treatment benefits of these LT modifiers in asthma management.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0b013e318254259bDOI Listing
August 2013

Efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin 1% combination in acne vulgaris: a randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, phase IV clinical trial.

Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2012 Jul-Aug;78(4):459-67

CliSkin Care Centre, Chidambaram, India.

Background: Acne vulgaris is a very common skin disease with a significant detrimental effect on the quality of life of the patients.

Aims: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination with its conventional formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face. It was a prospective, randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, clinical trial.

Methods: Eligible patients suffering from acne vulgaris of the face were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with a nano-emulsion gel or conventional gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin (as phosphate) 1% combination for 12 weeks. Total, inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts, with grading of acne severity were carried out on a monthly basis. Safety assessments were done to determine the comparative local and systemic tolerability. Two-tailed significance testing was carried out with appropriate statistical tests, and P-values < 0.05 were considered as significant.

Results: 209/212 patients enrolled in the study were eligible for efficacy and safety assessments in both nano-emulsion gel (118/119 patients) and conventional gel (91/93 patients) groups. Significantly better reductions in total (79.7% vs. 62.7%), inflammatory (88.7% vs. 71.4%) and noninflammatory (74.9% vs. 58.4%) lesions were reported with the nano-emulsion gel as compared to the conventional gel (P < 0.001 for all). Mean acne severity score also reduced significantly more with the nano-emulsion formulation (1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0; P < 0.001) than the comparator. Significantly lower incidence and lesser intensity of adverse events like local irritation (4.2% vs. 19.8%; P < 0.05) and erythema (0.8% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.05) were recorded with the nano-emulsion gel.

Conclusions: The nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination appears to be more efficacious and better tolerated than the conventional formulation for the treatment of acne vulgaris in Indian patients. Further studies can elucidate the comparative treatment benefits of this nano-emulsion gel formulation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.98077DOI Listing
January 2013

An open label, active controlled, multicentric clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in adult Indian patients suffering from allergic rhinitis.

J Assoc Physicians India 2011 Jul;59:424-8

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Zydus Tower, 9th Floor, Satellite Cross-roads, Ahmedabad - 380015, Gujarat.

Background: Allergic rhinitis is a common upper respiratory tract inflammation associated with a significant morbidity in all the age groups. Fluticasone furoate is a new potent topical glucocorticoid for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate (FF) nasal spray 110 microg/day with fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal spray 200 microg/day for the relief of symptoms of allergic rhinitis in adult Indian patients.

Methods: Clinically symptomatic patients (n=220) with allergic rhinitis received treatment with FF or FP for 2 weeks in this comparative, open label, multicentric, clinical trial. Nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, nasal itching, and sneezing) and ocular symptoms (itching/burning eyes, tearing/watering eyes, and eye redness) were recorded on a 4-point categoric scale by the patients. The efficacy was assessed by the change in nasal and ocular symptom scores as their subtotals (Total Nasal Symptom Score and Total Ocular Symptom Score) and grand total (Total Symptom Score).

Results: FF produced significantly better improvement in Total Symptom Score (-10.4 +/- 3.2 vs. -8.9 +/- 3.5, p<0.005) and Total Nasal Symptom Score (-7.3 +/- 2.2 vs. -6.2 +/- 2.6, p<0.005) as compared to FP. Also a significantly larger percentage of patients achieved complete symptomatic relief with FF (45.3% vs. 31.4%, p<0.05). FF was also better tolerated than FP.

Conclusion: FF nasal spray is significantly more effective and better tolerated than FP nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adult Indian patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
July 2011
-->