Skip to main content

As-Needed Versus Regular Intranasal Corticosteroid Therapy in Pediatric Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Double-Dummy Trial

Journal
Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology (Q1)
Published
19 August 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Supaluk Chatmaitri, Ongon Boonnijasin, Apiradee Wisitsartkul, Kantima Kanchanapoomi, Witchaya Srisuwatchari, Punchama Pacharn, et al.
PMID
42617693
DOI
10.1016/j.anai.2026.08.010

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Immunology and Allergy (top studies of the week, 1 November 2026): Randomized trial informs treatment of pediatric allergic rhinitis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are the most effective monotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR), but daily adherence remains challenging. Evidence comparing regular versus as-needed INCS use in pediatric perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) is limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and anti-inflammatory effects of regular versus as-needed INCS in pediatric PAR. METHODS: In this 8-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial, 70 children aged 6-18 years with PAR were assigned (1:1) to regular or as-needed intranasal fluticasone furoate. Key outcomes included total, nasal, and ocular symptom scores (TSS, TNSS, TOSS), visual analog scale (VAS), parent-assessed scores, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life-36 (RCQ-36), peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), nasal cytology, INCS exposure, and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients completed the trial (as-needed, n=33; regular, n=35). Regular treatment demonstrated greater improvements in TSS, TNSS, TOSS, VAS, PVAS, and PNIF than as-needed treatment at selected early time points (all P<0.05). However, these differences were not sustained through week 8. No significant between-group differences were observed in PTSS, PTNSS, PTOSS, or RCQ-36 scores. At week 8, regular treatment yielded greater reductions in mucosal eosinophils and basophilic metachromatic cells (P<0.05). Cumulative INCS exposure was lower with as-needed treatment (P<0.05). Adverse events were comparable, although epistaxis occurred only in the as-needed group (P=0.02). CONCLUSION: Regular INCS use was associated with greater early clinical and antiinflammatory benefits than as-needed use in pediatric PAR, without increased adverse events. However, between-group clinical differences were not sustained through week 8. As-needed treatment also improved outcomes from baseline and may be an alternative for symptom control in selected patients.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.