盐酸氮(卓)司汀与丙酸氟替卡松治疗青少年季节性变应性鼻炎疗效比较

摘要

目的 研究盐酸氮(卓)司汀与丙酸氟替卡松治疗青少年季节性变应性鼻炎(SAR)的疗效及安全性.方法 选取2009年3月至2012年3月在我院诊治的SAR青少年患者76例,随机分为盐酸氮(革)司汀组和丙酸氟替卡松组,各38例,分别给予盐酸氮(卓)司汀鼻喷剂和丙酸氟替卡松鼻喷剂治疗,评价2组疗效,并通过鼻部症状总评分(TNSS)和服部症状总评分(TOSS)比较2组临床症状改善情况.结果 盐酸氮革司汀组和丙酸氟替卡松组总有效率分别为76.3％ (29/38)和81.6％ (31/38),组间差异无统计学意义(x2=0.32,P＞0.05).盐酸氮(卓)司汀组治疗前后TNSS分别为(8.7±2.3)分和(5.5±1.6)分,TOSS分别为(6.5±1.8)分和(3.9±1.2)分；丙酸氟替卡松组治疗前后TNSS评分分别为(8.4±2.2)分和(4.6±1.6)分,TOSS分别为(6.6±1.6)分和(4.5±1.3).2组治疗前后TNSS和TOSS的差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05)；治疗后,盐酸氮(卓)司汀组与丙酸氟替卡松组的TNSS和TOSS差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).盐酸氮革司汀组有2例患者发生嗜睡,丙酸氟替卡松组1例鼻出血.结论 盐酸氮(草)司汀与丙酸氟替卡松在治疗青少年SAR中均安全有效,二者在改善患者鼻部及眼部症状中效果相似.%Objective To study the effect of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in adolescent seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).Methods Seventy-six patients were selected from March 2009 to March 2012.All patients were randomly divided into AZE group (treated with AZE) and FP group (treated with FP).The efficiency rate,total nasal symptoms scores (TNSS) and total ocular symptom score (TOSS) were compared.Results The efficiency rate of AZE was 76.3％ (29/38) ; FP was 81.6％ (31/38) ; no significant difference was observed (P ＞ 0.05).The TNSS before treatment was (8.7 ± 2.3) scores and (8.4 ± 2.2) scores and it was (5.5 ± 1.6) scores and (4.6 ± 1.6) scores after treatment.The TOSS before treatment was (6.5 ± 1.8) scores and (6.6 ± 1.6) scores and after treatment it was (3.9 ± 1.2) scores and (4.5 ± 1.3) scores.No significant differences were observed between groups after treatment(P ＞ 0.05).There were 2 cases showing somnolent in AZE group and 1 case reported to have nosebleed.Conclusion Both AZE and FP are effective and safe in treatment of adolescent SAR; no significant difference is observed in TNSS or TOSS.