NUR 602 Module 2 Class Comparison Example

Reviewed by Delia Ravenscroft, MSN, RN

This NUR 602 Module 2 Class Comparison sample compares the drugs used for allergic rhinitis and shows why the best choice changes across one family. It is written for SNHU NUR 602, Advanced Pharmacology Across the Life Span, the MSN family nurse practitioner course that appears in the catalog as NUR-602. Three composite relatives share spring hay fever: a 3-year-old girl, her 38-year-old mother who drives a school bus and her 80-year-old grandfather with an enlarged prostate who takes diphenhydramine at night. The paper sets intranasal corticosteroids against first and second generation oral antihistamines on five deciding features: effect on congestion, sedation, anticholinergic load, approved age and kidney dosing. It then picks a regimen for each person, sets out growth checks for the child and closes on the thin evidence for adults over 75.

CourseNUR 602 Advanced Pharmacology Across the Life Span
ModuleModule 2
Paper typeDrug class comparison paper across the life span
LengthAbout 1,210 words, 7 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolSouthern New Hampshire University
ProgramMSN
UpdatedSeptember 2026

Free sample paper for NUR 602 Module 2

1

One Family, Three Ages, One Allergy Season: Comparing Intranasal Corticosteroids and Oral Antihistamines Across the Life Span

[Student Name]

Southern New Hampshire University

NUR 602: Advanced Pharmacology Across the Life Span

Module Two Class Comparison

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.

What this page is doingThe title names the two classes being compared and signals that age, not the diagnosis, will drive the comparison.
2

One Family, Three Ages, One Allergy Season: Comparing Intranasal Corticosteroids and Oral Antihistamines Across the Life Span

Allergic rhinitis is usually treated as a simple problem with an over-the-counter answer. The drugs in the pharmacy aisle, however, differ in ways that matter far more for some patients than for others. A nasal steroid that is ideal for a bus driver raises a growth question in a preschooler, and an antihistamine sold as a sleep aid is a real hazard for an 80-year-old man with a large prostate. This paper compares intranasal corticosteroids with first and second generation oral H1 antihistamines, using one composite family to show that a class comparison is only useful when it is organized around the features that decide a choice for a particular person.

What this page is doingThe introduction states the argument: a comparison is judged by whether it helps decide for a specific patient, not by how many drug properties it lists.
3

The Family

Lily is 3 years old and weighs 15 kg. Each April she has a runny, blocked nose, sneezing and mouth breathing at night, and her parents have been giving her a children's diphenhydramine syrup that makes her drowsy and, some evenings, oddly agitated. Her mother, Dana, is 38 and drives a school bus; her symptoms are sneezing, itchy eyes and heavy congestion, and she avoids any tablet that says it may cause drowsiness because of her commercial license. Dana's father, Walter, is 80. He has benign prostatic hyperplasia treated with tamsulosin, an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 45 mL/min/1.73 m² and mild short-term memory complaints, and he takes 50 mg of diphenhydramine at bedtime because it helps both his nose and his sleep.

What this page is doingEach relative is given the one or two facts that will decide the comparison: weight and a paradoxical reaction for the child, a safety-sensitive job for the mother and prostate, kidney and memory findings for the grandfather.
4

The Features That Decide

Most drug references list dozens of properties for these classes. For this family, five decide the choice: whether the drug relieves congestion, how much it sedates, how much anticholinergic effect it carries, the youngest approved age and whether the dose depends on kidney function. Table 1 sets out those five features for the main options.

Table 1. Deciding Features of Three Drug Classes for Allergic Rhinitis

FeatureIntranasal corticosteroidsFirst generation antihistaminesSecond generation antihistamines
ExamplesMometasone, fluticasoneDiphenhydramine, chlorpheniramineFexofenadine, loratadine, cetirizine
Nasal congestionRelieves it; most effective single classLittle effectLittle effect
Sedation and impairmentNoneMarked; impairment may be unfeltMinimal for fexofenadine and loratadine; some with cetirizine
Anticholinergic effectNoneStrongNegligible
Youngest labeled age2 years for mometasone; 4 years for fluticasone propionateNot advised for young children2 years for all three
Kidney dosingNone neededAccumulates; avoid in older adultsLower dose for cetirizine and fexofenadine

Note. Summarized from Dykewicz et al. (2020), Church et al. (2010) and the 2023 AGS Beers Criteria. Labeled ages are for allergic rhinitis in the United States.

What this page is doingThe table is limited to five features chosen for this family, and the note cites where the entries come from, which is the discipline a class comparison rubric rewards.
5

Intranasal Corticosteroids

Intranasal corticosteroids act on the late phase of the allergic response, reducing mucosal inflammation, and they are the only class in the table that reliably relieves congestion. For patients 12 and older with seasonal allergic rhinitis, the Joint Task Force recommends starting with an intranasal corticosteroid alone rather than combining it with an oral antihistamine, because the combination adds little (Wallace et al., 2017). The broader practice parameter supports the same class as first-line therapy for persistent or moderate symptoms at most ages (Dykewicz et al., 2020). Onset is within a day, but full effect may take several days of regular use, which patients need to hear.

The concern in children is growth. In a one-year randomized trial of prepubertal children aged 6 to 9, those using intranasal beclomethasone grew 5.0 cm compared with 5.9 cm with placebo (Skoner et al., 2000). A trial of the same length in children aged 3 to 9 found no growth suppression with once-daily mometasone at 100 mcg, a drug with very low systemic bioavailability (Schenkel et al., 2000). The difference supports choosing an agent with low bioavailability, using the lowest dose that controls symptoms and measuring height.

What this page is doingThe section gives the mechanism that explains the class advantage, the guideline position with its age range and the specific growth evidence, including the numbers, instead of a vague safety statement.
6

Oral Antihistamines, Old and New

First generation antihistamines cross the blood-brain barrier and bind central H1 and muscarinic receptors. A position paper from a European allergy network describes reduced REM sleep, impaired learning and work efficiency, involvement in transport accidents and deaths from overdose in young children, and argues that these drugs no longer belong on open sale (Church et al., 2010). The impairment is not always felt. In a driving simulator trial, 50 mg of diphenhydramine impaired driving more than alcohol at a concentration of about 0.1%, while 60 mg of fexofenadine did not differ from placebo, and self-rated drowsiness did not predict impairment (Weiler et al., 2000). For older adults, the 2023 Beers Criteria advise against this whole generation, citing their links to delirium, retained urine, constipation and falls (American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel, 2023).

Second generation antihistamines relieve sneezing, itching and rhinorrhea with little or no sedation, although cetirizine sedates some patients at usual doses. They do little for congestion, so they suit patients whose main symptoms are itch and sneezing, or those who will not use a spray.

What this page is doingThe antihistamine section contrasts the two generations through what matters clinically: central effects, unfelt impairment and anticholinergic harm, each supported by a source.
7

Applying the Comparison

For Lily, the diphenhydramine should stop. Her congestion and night mouth breathing point to a nasal steroid, and mometasone is labeled from age 2 at one spray in each nostril once daily. If itch and sneezing persist, loratadine 5 mg daily is labeled for children aged 2 to 5. Her height should be measured at each visit on the same stadiometer, and the spray used only during the season.

For Dana, a daily nasal steroid addresses her main complaint, congestion, with no impairment. If her eyes still itch, fexofenadine 180 mg is the least sedating oral choice; she should take it with water rather than fruit juice, which reduces absorption. She should avoid first generation products, including many night-time cold remedies, and know that feeling alert is not proof of being unimpaired.

Walter's diphenhydramine carries the most risk in the family. It adds anticholinergic load to a man with an enlarged prostate and memory complaints, and it accumulates with reduced kidney function. The plan is to taper it over one to two weeks while starting a nasal steroid. If an oral agent is still needed, fexofenadine at 60 mg once daily is appropriate for his kidney function. His sleep complaint needs its own assessment, beginning with sleep habits, rather than a replacement sedative.

What this page is doingThe comparison is applied to each relative with a named drug, an age-appropriate dose and a reason tied back to Table 1, which is the link between comparison and prescribing that graders look for.
8

Education, Monitoring and Limits of the Evidence

Spray technique is the most common reason nasal steroids fail. Each person should aim the nozzle away from the septum, toward the outer wall of the nostril, and use the spray daily rather than as needed. Nosebleeds or crusting are reasons to check technique and examine the septum. For Walter, the follow-up visit should ask about urinary stream, bowel habits, sleep and any change in memory once diphenhydramine has stopped.

The evidence is thinnest for the oldest family member. Guideline trials of rhinitis drugs mostly enrolled adolescents and adults of working age, and the Joint Task Force synopsis applies to patients 12 and older without an upper age analysis (Wallace et al., 2017). The advice for Walter therefore rests on pharmacology and on geriatric safety data rather than on rhinitis trials in adults over 75, and his chart should say so.

What this page is doingThe closing sections convert the comparison into teaching and follow-up, then state where the evidence stops, which shows the critical appraisal expected at the graduate level.
9

Conclusion

A useful class comparison does not rank drugs once for everyone. For this family, the same five features point to a low-bioavailability nasal steroid with height checks for a preschooler, a nasal steroid with a nonsedating antihistamine for a bus driver and the removal of a sedating antihistamine for an 80-year-old man. The diagnosis is the same in all three; the decision is not.

What this page is doingThe conclusion restates the thesis through the three decisions, which ties the whole paper back to life span prescribing.
10

References

American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. (2023). American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated AGS Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 71(7), 2052-2081. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.18372

Church, M. K., Maurer, M., Simons, F. E. R., Bindslev-Jensen, C., van Cauwenberge, P., Bousquet, J., Holgate, S. T., & Zuberbier, T. (2010). Risk of first-generation H1-antihistamines: A GA2LEN position paper. Allergy, 65(4), 459-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02325.x

Dykewicz, M. S., Wallace, D. V., Amrol, D. J., Baroody, F. M., Bernstein, J. A., Craig, T. J., Dinakar, C., Ellis, A. K., Finegold, I., Golden, D. B., Greenhawt, M. J., Hagan, J. B., Horner, C. C., Khan, D. A., Lang, D. M., Larenas-Linnemann, D. E., Lieberman, J. A., Meltzer, E. O., Oppenheimer, J. J., . . . Steven, G. C. (2020). Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 146(4), 721-767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.07.007

Schenkel, E. J., Skoner, D. P., Bronsky, E. A., Miller, S. D., Pearlman, D. S., Rooklin, A., Rosen, J. P., Ruff, M. E., Vandewalker, M. L., Wanderer, A., Damaraju, C. V., Nolop, K. B., & Mesarina-Wicki, B. (2000). Absence of growth retardation in children with perennial allergic rhinitis after one year of treatment with mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray. Pediatrics, 105(2), Article e22. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.105.2.e22

Skoner, D. P., Rachelefsky, G. S., Meltzer, E. O., Chervinsky, P., Morris, R. M., Seltzer, J. M., Storms, W. W., & Wood, R. A. (2000). Detection of growth suppression in children during treatment with intranasal beclomethasone dipropionate. Pediatrics, 105(2), Article e23. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.105.2.e23

Wallace, D. V., Dykewicz, M. S., Oppenheimer, J., Portnoy, J. M., & Lang, D. M. (2017). Pharmacologic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: Synopsis of guidance from the 2017 Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(12), 876-881. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-2203

Weiler, J. M., Bloomfield, J. R., Woodworth, G. G., Grant, A. R., Layton, T. A., Brown, T. L., McKenzie, D. R., Baker, T. W., & Watson, G. S. (2000). Effects of fexofenadine, diphenhydramine, and alcohol on driving performance: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in the Iowa driving simulator. Annals of Internal Medicine, 132(5), 354-363. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-132-5-200003070-00004

What the NUR 602 Module 2 instructions ask for

A NUR 602 class comparison assignment normally names two or more drug classes used for one condition and asks you to compare mechanism, effectiveness, adverse effects, dosing and cost, then apply the comparison to patients of different ages. Some versions give a case; others let you choose. Expect three to five pages of body text in APA 7 with scholarly sources and a table or matrix. Read the prompt for the populations it names, because a comparison that ignores the child or the older adult in the case misses half the grade. Before drafting, decide which features actually separate the classes for your patients and build the paper around those rather than reproducing a drug monograph, since graders read for judgment.

How this NUR 602 Module 2 class comparison example is built

This sample follows a single composite family through one allergy season: a 3-year-old, her bus-driver mother and an 80-year-old grandfather on diphenhydramine. Table 1 limits the comparison to five features: congestion relief, sedation, anticholinergic load, youngest labeled age and kidney dosing. The text then explains the steroid advantage with the Joint Task Force recommendation and the two pediatric growth trials, and it contrasts the antihistamine generations with the Iowa simulator results and the Beers Criteria. Each relative gets a named drug, a labeled dose and a reason. The paper closes with spray technique, follow-up questions for the grandfather and a plain statement that rhinitis trials rarely enrolled adults his age.

Where the NUR 602 Module 2 rubric puts the points

Rubrics for this assignment usually award points for accurate pharmacology of each class, a comparison that is organized and supported, application to the patients or populations named, patient safety and monitoring, and APA 7 writing. The highest band goes to papers that explain why one option suits one patient and not another. Tables earn credit when they are selective and cited. Growth, sedation and anticholinergic risk are the safety topics most likely to be expected here, so each should be backed by a source. Specific doses with the labeled age range show prescribing readiness. Stating the limits of the evidence for very young or very old patients is often what separates proficient work from exemplary work.

NUR 602 Module 2 help: the mistakes that cost points

Comparison papers lose points when they turn into two drug summaries placed side by side, when the table lists every property ever reported or when the patients in the prompt disappear after the first page. Another frequent problem is recommending a first generation antihistamine for sleep in an older adult or giving adult doses to a child. Choose the deciding features first, cite each safety claim, give a dose with its labeled age and write one sentence on what the evidence does not cover. If your assignment compares other classes, such as statins or antidepressants, send the prompt and case and the same feature-first structure can be built for those drugs and your own patients.

Get NUR 602 Module 2 written to your instructions

Tell us the two drug classes your prompt names and the patients or ages it asks about. You will get a comparison paper built around the features that decide the choice, with a selective table and labeled doses, in 24 to 48 hours, and your first request costs nothing. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.

More NUR 602 papers and related MSN samples

NUR 602 Module 2 questions, answered

Where can I find a free NUR 602 Module 2 Class Comparison sample?

This page carries a complete one: intranasal corticosteroids compared with old and new oral antihistamines for a 3-year-old, a bus driver and an 80-year-old, with a table and APA 7 references.

Why are intranasal steroids preferred over antihistamines for hay fever?

They are the most effective single class and the only one that reliably relieves nasal congestion. The Joint Task Force recommends them alone as initial treatment from age 12 rather than combined with an oral antihistamine.

Do nasal steroid sprays slow growth in children?

One trial found slightly slower growth with beclomethasone over a year, while another found none with mometasone. Choosing a low-bioavailability agent at the lowest effective dose and measuring height is the usual approach.

Why should older adults avoid diphenhydramine?

It is strongly anticholinergic and sedating. Geriatric prescribing criteria advise against the older antihistamines for people this age, since they can bring on delirium, trouble passing urine, constipation and falls.

Which antihistamine is safest for someone who drives for work?

Fexofenadine and loratadine cause the least sedation. In a simulator trial, fexofenadine did not impair driving, while diphenhydramine impaired it more than alcohol, and drowsiness did not predict impairment.