Citation

Bender BG, Milgrom H. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004; 92(3): 344-349.

Affiliation

Department of Pediatrics, National Jewish Medical and Research Center, Denver, Colorado 80206, USA. benderb@njc.org

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, Publisher Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61573-6

PMID

15049399

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Concern has been directed at the relative sedating properties of lipophilic and lipophobic antihistamines, but few studies have sought to determine the comparative benefit of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatments in controlling symptoms and consequently improving alertness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative contributions of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and loratadine in enhancing daytime performance in 8- to 17-year-old children. METHODS: All participants had a documented history of SAR, positive response to a skin prick (wheal 3-mm greater than negative control or equal to the positive control) for seasonal aeroallergens, and clinically identifiable symptoms at the time of randomization. Following confirmation during baseline of current SAR symptoms, participants were randomized to 1 of the 2 treatments and returned 2 weeks later for evaluation of symptom control, quality of life, attention, reaction time, and memory. RESULTS: Children in the fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray group but not the loratadine group demonstrated improvement in nasal symptoms, nasal quality of life score, and composite verbal memory. No differences were identified on any scores from the Conners Continuous Performance Test. CONCLUSIONS: Treatments that most effectively control SAR symptoms are also likely to provide the greatest benefit to children whose daytime functioning, including their capacity to learn at school, is compromised by their illness.

Language: en