4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of the effects of nasal steroids and montelukast on olfactory functions in patients with allergic rhinitis

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORPORATION OFFICE
DOI: 10.1016/j.anorl.2016.05.012

Keywords

Montelukast; Mometasone furoate; Allergic rhinitis; Sniffin' Sticks test

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Olfactory dysfunction is one of the comorbidities associated with allergic rhinitis (AR) and AR is one of the common causes of olfactory problems. We aimed to evaluate by the Sniffin' Sticks test the effects on olfactory functions of nasal steroids and leukotriene antagonists used for allergic rhinitis. Methods: Thirty patients with seasonal rhinitis were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into three groups of 10 patients; group 1 received montelukast sodium and mometasone furoate( MF) therapy, group 2 received only montelukast, and group 3 only MF. Patients' olfactory functions were determined using the Sniffin' Sticks olfactory test before and after a month treatment. Results: Threshold, discrimination, identification, and the sum of threshold, discrimination, and identification (TDI) values were not significantly different among the groups before treatment. For Group 1 and Group 3 patients, there were statistically significant differences in threshold, discrimination, identification, and TDI values before and after treatment (P < 0.05) (Wilcoxon signed ranks analysis). For Group 2 patients, the before and after treatment values of threshold, discrimination, identification, and TDI showed no significant difference (P > 0.05). Conclusion: According to the findings of our study, MF is superior to montelukast in improving olfactory function. Although montelukast has been shown to be effective against AR symptoms, its effect on olfactory function was not demonstrated in this study. (C) 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available