Out of different corticosteroids available for treating the symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR), Fluticasone furoate proved to be the most affordable option for relieving eye/ocular symptoms in patients with AR, a meta-analysis published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology culminated. Chadakan Yan et al. compared the cost-effectiveness of different intranasal corticosteroids - Budesonide, Mometasone furoate, Triamcinolone, and Fluticasone furoate for relieving itchy, watery and red eyes in AR patients in Thailand.

The total ocular symptoms score (TOSS) improvement effectiveness was assessed through a meta-analysis, comparing each corticosteroid to a placebo. A cost-effectiveness analysis, considered one-year costs and outcomes from a Thai societal viewpoint. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was equated. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted to address parameter uncertainties. This analysis included a total of 3722 patients with seasonal AR out of 13 eligible randomized controlled trials. The percentages of efficacy of different therapies are mentioned in Table 1:

Compared to Budesonide, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Fluticasone, Mometasone, and Triamcinolone was portrayed as THB-6,539.92, 4,593.83, and 1,401.24 respectively. The likelihood of using FFNS was deliberated cost-effective in 87.50% of patients from zero value followed by Mometasone (0.80%), Triamcinolone (5.40%), and Budesonide (6.30%) as per the outcomes of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. At a cost threshold beyond 20,000 Thai Baht, the use of FFNS was reflected as economically favorable or efficient for ocular manifestations in patients of AR.