Review of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis

Method validation and characterization of stress degradation products of azelastine hydrochloride using LC-UV/PDA and LC-Q/TOF-MS studies

RATIONALE

Azelastine HCl is a second-generation H1 -receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis and non-allergic vasomotor rhinitis. This study encompasses the validation of a liquid chromatography-ultra violet photo diode array (LC-UV/PDA) method for the drug and its extension to liquid chromatography/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-Q/TOF-MS) studies for identification and characterization of various stress degradation products of the drug.

METHODS

Stress degradation of azelastine HCl was undertaken under the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) prescribed conditions of hydrolytic, photolytic, oxidative, and thermal stress. The degraded drug solutions were analyzed using Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC) employing a C18 (100 × 4.6 mm; 2.6 μ, Kinetex) column by isocratic elution. Detection wavelength was 241 nm. The degradation products were identified and characterized using UPLC-MS/TOF studies, and an attempt was made to isolate one of the degradation products by solvent extraction.

RESULTS

The drug was found to significantly degrade under acidic/alkaline/neutral photolytic, oxidative, and alkaline hydrolytic conditions. Six degradation products (I-VI) were identified through LC-Q/TOF-MS studies that were adequately resolved from the drug with the developed UPLC method. All degradation products (I-VI) were ionized in the total ion chromatogram (TIC) in the LC-MS studies, and these were identified and characterized, and the degradation pathway of the drug was postulated. One of the oxidation products isolated from the degraded drug solution was characterized through differential scanning calorimetry, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectral data.

CONCLUSIONS

Six degradation products generated from stress degradation studies on azelastine HCl were adequately resolved through LC-UV/PDA studies followed by method validation. These were successfully identified and characterized through LC-Q/TOF-MS studies, and the degradation pathways for the generation of these products from the drug have been postulated.

Cytological Study of Topical Effect of Azelastine Hydrochloride on the Nasal Mucous Membrane Cells in Various Nasal Rhinitis Types

Previous reports on the benefits of using local therapy with azelastine in rhinitis focus on the assessment of clinical symptoms and the analysis of nasal lavage for the presence of inflammatory cells and the expression of adhesion molecules. Little attention has been paid to studies assessing the effect of azelastine on individual cytotypes of the nasal mucosa, especially epithelial cells, also in the context of inducing morphological changes. The aim of this study was the cytological analysis of swabs taken from the surface of the nasal mucosa of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic/vasomotor rhinitis (NAR/VMR) who were subjected to 4 weeks of therapy with azelastine and then comparing the obtained results with the pre-treatment condition. The technique of obtaining materials for cytoanalysis included sampling, staining of smears, microscopic analysis, and preparation of cytograms. Our studies confirmed the therapeutic benefits of azelastine in both study groups. Significant changes were demonstrated, confirming the regeneration of ciliated cells and the induction of autophagy and apoptosis in epithelial cells. Such changes indicate new mechanisms of action of azelastine, which play a significant role in restoring homeostasis in the nasal mucosa. The presented research also results in a detailed description of cytological changes in both studied rhinitis types, which complements the knowledge regarding prognostic indicators.

Developing Nanosuspension Loaded with Azelastine for Potential Nasal Drug Delivery: Determination of Proinflammatory Interleukin IL-4 mRNA Expression and Industrial Scale-Up Strategy

In order to increase bioavailability and intranasal absorbance, the current work set out to create azelastine nasal spray based on nanosuspension. Chondroitin was utilized as a polymer to prepare azelastine nanosuspension through the precipitation procedure. A size of 500 nm and a polydispersity index of 0.276 with a negative potential (-20 mV) were achieved. X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, thermal analysis including differential scanning calorimetry and thermogravimetric analysis, in vitro release, and diffusion studies were used to characterize the optimized nanosuspension. MTT assay was used to assess the viability of the cells, and hemolysis assay was used to assess the blood compatibility. Using RNA extraction and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, the levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-4, which is most closely related to cytokines in allergic rhinitis, were measured in mouse lungs. The drug dissolution and diffusion study indicated 2.0-fold increase compared to pure reference sample. Therefore, the azelastine nanosuspension could be suggested as a practical and simple nanosystem for intranasal delivery with improved permeability and bioavailability. The outcome obtained in this study indicated that azelastine nanosuspension has great potential to treat allergic rhinitis as intranasal treatment.

Early intervention with azelastine nasal spray may reduce viral load in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients

With the changing epidemiology of COVID-19 and its impact on our daily lives, there is still an unmet need of COVID-19 therapies treating early infections to prevent progression. The current study was a randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ninety SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were randomized into 3 groups receiving placebo, 0.02% or 0.1% azelastine nasal spray for 11 days, during which viral loads were assessed by quantitative PCR. Investigators assessed patients' status throughout the trial including safety follow-ups (days 16 and 60). Symptoms were documented in patient diaries. Initial viral loads were log₁₀ 6.85 ± 1.31 (mean ± SD) copies/mL (ORF 1a/b gene). After treatment, virus load was reduced in all groups (p < 0.0001) but was greater in the 0.1% group compared to placebo (p = 0.007). In a subset of patients (initial Ct < 25) viral load was strongly reduced on day 4 in the 0.1% group compared to placebo (p = 0.005). Negative PCR results appeared earlier and more frequently in the azelastine treated groups: being 18.52% and 21.43% in the 0.1% and 0.02% groups, respectively, compared to 0% for placebo on day 8. Comparable numbers of adverse events occurred in all treatment groups with no safety concerns. The shown effects of azelastine nasal spray may thus be suggestive of azelastine's potential as an antiviral treatment.Trial registration: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00024520; Date of Registration in DRKS: 12/02/2021). EudraCT number: 2020-005544-34.

Pharmacometric Modeling of the Impact of Azelastine Nasal Spray on SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load and Related Symptoms in COVID-19 Patients

The histamine-1 receptor antagonist azelastine was recently found to impact SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics in a Phase 2 clinical trial (CARVIN). Thus, we investigated the relationship between intranasal azelastine administrations and viral load, as well as symptom severity in COVID-19 patients and analyzed the impact of covariates using non-linear mixed-effects modeling. For this, we developed a pharmacokinetic (PK) model for the oral and intranasal administration of azelastine. A one-compartment model with parallel absorption after intranasal administration described the PK best, covering both the intranasal and the gastro-intestinal absorption pathways. For virus kinetic and symptoms modeling, viral load and symptom records were gathered from the CARVIN study that included data of 82 COVID-19 patients receiving placebo or intranasal azelastine. The effect of azelastine on viral load was described by a dose–effect model targeting the virus elimination rate. An extension of the model revealed a relationship between COVID-19 symptoms severity and the number of infected cells. The analysis revealed that the intranasal administration of azelastine led to a faster decline in viral load and symptoms severity compared to placebo. Moreover, older patients showed a slower decline in viral load compared to younger patients and male patients experienced higher peak viral loads than females.

The Multidirectional Effect of Azelastine Hydrochloride on Cervical Cancer Cells

A major cause of cancer cell resistance to chemotherapeutics is the blocking of apoptosis and induction of autophagy in the context of cell adaptation and survival. Therefore, new compounds are being sought, also among drugs that are commonly used in other therapies. Due to the involvement of histamine in the regulation of processes occurring during the development of many types of cancer, antihistamines are now receiving special attention. Our study concerned the identification of new mechanisms of action of azelastine hydrochloride, used in antiallergic treatment. The study was performed on HeLa cells treated with different concentrations of azelastine (15-90 µM). Cell cycle, level of autophagy (LC3 protein activity) and apoptosis (annexin V assay), activity of caspase 3/7, anti-apoptotic protein of Bcl-2 family, ROS concentration, measurement of mitochondrial membrane potential (Δψm), and level of phosphorylated H2A.X in response to DSB were evaluated by cytometric method. Cellular changes were also demonstrated at the level of transmission electron microscopy and optical and fluorescence microscopy. Lysosomal enzyme activities-cathepsin D and L and cell viability (MTT assay) were assessed spectrophotometrically. Results: Azelastine in concentrations of 15-25 µM induced degradation processes, vacuolization, increase in cathepsin D and L activity, and LC3 protein activation. By increasing ROS, it also caused DNA damage and blocked cells in the S phase of the cell cycle. At the concentrations of 45-90 µM, azelastine clearly promoted apoptosis by activation of caspase 3/7 and inactivation of Bcl-2 protein. Fragmentation of cell nucleus was confirmed by DAPI staining. Changes were also found in the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, whose damage was confirmed by staining with rhodamine 123 and in the MTT test. Azelastine decreased the mitotic index and induced mitotic catastrophe. Studies demonstrated the multidirectional effects of azelastine on HeLa cells, including anti-proliferative, cytotoxic, autophagic, and apoptotic properties, which were the predominant mechanism of death. The revealed novel properties of azelastine may be practically used in anti-cancer therapy in the future.

Identification of selective 8-(piperidin-4-yloxy)quinoline sulfone and sulfonamide histamine H1 receptor antagonists for use in allergic rhinitis

A series of potent, selective and long-acting quinoline-based sulfonamide human H₁ histamine receptor antagonists, designed for once-daily intranasal administration for the treatment of rhinitis were developed. Sulfonamide 33b had a slightly lower affinity for the H₁ receptor than azelastine, had low oral bioavailability in the rat and dog, and was turned over to five major metabolites. Furthermore, 33b had longer duration of action than azelastine in guinea pigs, lower rat brain-penetration, and did not cause time dependent inhibition of CYP2D6 or CYP3A4. The clinical dose in humans is expected to be low (approximately 0.5mg per day) based on the clinical dose used for azelastine and a comparison of efficacy data from animal models for 33b and azelastine.

Design of Phthalazinone Amide Histamine H1 Receptor Antagonists for Use in Rhinitis

The synthesis of potent amide-containing phthalazinone H₁ histamine receptor antagonists is described. Three analogues 3e, 3g, and 9g were equipotent with azelastine and were longer-acting in vitro. Amide 3g had low oral bioavailability, low brain-penetration, high metabolic clearance, and long duration of action in vivo, and it was suitable for once-daily dosing intranasally, with a predicted dose for humans of approximately 0.5 mg per day.

Allergic rhinitis: current options and future perspectives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergic rhinitis due its high prevalence and burden needs to be properly treated. The disease's clinical features impose well tolerated drugs usable for long-term treatment. Nowadays, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids represent the milestone of rhinitis therapy. The aim of the present review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment. A particular attention has been deserved to clinical trials, published in the last year that assess the efficacy and safety of new formulation of available drugs or new molecules.

RECENT FINDINGS

Available and new drugs under investigation seem able to control rhinitis symptoms without a significant patient's burden. The challenge for the next years will be to improve treatment adherence rather than to introduce new drugs.

SUMMARY

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines have brought attention to allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma, but have also proposed a new classification in terms of symptoms severity and persistence useful for tailoring treatment on patients' phenotypes. Their further dissemination is needed; furthermore, they represent a cornerstone for the scientific community through a continuous update on relevant issues such as rhinitis phenotypes, disease management on the basis of new treatments, clinical trials transferability in real life, and allergic rhinitis management in public health programs.

High-content pSTAT3/1 imaging assays to screen for selective inhibitors of STAT3 pathway activation in head and neck cancer cell lines

The oncogenic transcription factor signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) is hyperactivated in most cancers and represents a plausible therapeutic target. In the absence of STAT3-selective small-molecule inhibitors, we sought to develop pSTAT3/1 high-content imaging (HCS) assays to screen for selective inhibitors of STAT3 pathway activation in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) tumor cell lines. Based on the expression of the interleukin-6 (IL-6)Rα and gp130 subunits of the IL-6 receptor complex and STAT3, we selected the Cal33 HNSCC cell line as our model. After developing image acquisition and analysis procedures, we rigorously investigated the cytokine activation responses to optimize the dynamic ranges of both assays and demonstrated that the pan-Janus kinase inhibitor pyridone 6 nonselectively inhibited pSTAT3 and pSTAT1 activation with 50% inhibition concentrations of 7.19 ± 4.08 and 16.38 ± 8.45 nM, respectively. The optimized pSTAT3 HCS assay performed very well in a pilot screen of 1,726 compounds from the Library of Pharmacologically Active Compounds and the National Institutes of Health clinical collection sets, and we identified 51 inhibitors of IL-6-induced pSTAT3 activation. However, only three of the primary HCS actives selectively inhibited STAT3 compared with STAT1. Our follow-up studies indicated that the nonselective inhibition of cytokine induced pSTAT3 and pSTAT1 activation by G-alpha stimulatory subunit-coupled G-protein-coupled receptor agonists, and forskolin was likely due to cyclic adenosine monophosphate-mediated up-regulation of suppressors of cytokine signaling 3. Azelastine, an H1 receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis, and ocular conjunctivitis, was subsequently confirmed as a selective inhibitor of IL-6-induced pSTAT3 activation that also reduced the growth of HNSCC cell lines. These data illustrate the power of a chemical biology approach to lead generation that utilizes fully developed and optimized HCS assays as phenotypic screens to interrogate specific signaling pathways.

Brazilian Academy of Rhinology position paper on topical intranasal therapy

This documents aims at educating those who treat sinonasal diseases - both general practitioners and specialists - about topical nasal treatments. By means of scientific evidence reviews, the Brazilian Academy of Rhinology provides its practical and updated guidelines on the most utilized topical nasal medication, except for the drugs that have topical antibiotics in their formulas.

Role of leukotriene antagonists and antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is the most common atopic disorder seen in ENT clinics. It is diagnosed by history, physical exam and objective testing. Patient education, environmental control measures, pharmacotherapy, and allergen-specific immunotherapy are the cornerstones of allergic rhinitis treatment and can significantly reduce the burden of disease. Current treatment guidelines include antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, oral and intranasal decongestants, intranasal anticholinergics, intranasal cromolyn, and leukotriene receptor antagonists. In the mechanism of allergic rhinitis, histamine is responsible for major allergic rhinitis symptoms such as rhinorrhea, nasal itching and sneezing. Its effect on nasal congestion is less evident. In contrast, leukotrienes result in increase in nasal airway resistance and vascular permeability. Antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists are commonly used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The published literature about combined antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists in mono- or combination therapy is reviewed and presented.

Synthesis and pharmacological investigation of azaphthalazinone human histamine H(1) receptor antagonists

5-Aza, 6-aza, 7-aza and 8-aza-phthalazinone, and 5,8-diazaphthalazinone templates were synthesised by stereoselective routes starting from the appropriate pyridine/pyrazine dicarboxylic acids by activation with CDI, reaction with 4-chlorophenyl acetate ester enolate to give a β-ketoester, which was hydrolysed, and decarboxylated. The resulting ketone was condensed with hydrazine to form the azaphthalazinone core. The azaphthalazinone cores were alkylated with N-Boc-D-prolinol at N-2 by Mitsunobu reaction, de-protected, and then alkylated at the pyrrolidine nitrogen to provide the target H(1) receptor antagonists. All four mono-azaphthalazinone series had higher affinity (pK(i)) for the human H(1) receptor than azelastine, but were not as potent as the parent non-aza phthalazinone. The 5,8-diazaphthalazinone was equipotent with azelastine. The least potent series were the 7-azaphthalazinones, whereas the 5-azaphthalazinones were the most lipophilic. The more hydrophilic series were the 8-aza series. Replacement of the N-methyl substituent on the pyrrolidine with the n-butyl group caused an increase in potency (pA(2)) and a corresponding increase in lipophilicity. Introduction of a β-ether oxygen in the n-butyl analogues (2-methoxyethyl group) decreased the H(1) pA(2) slightly, and increased the selectivity against hERG. The duration of action in vitro was longer in the 6-azaphthalazinone series. The more potent and selective 6-azaphthalazinone core was used to append an H(3) receptor antagonist fragment, and to convert the series into the long acting single-ligand, dual H(1) H(3) receptor antagonist 44. The pharmacological profile of 44 was very similar to our intranasal clinical candidate 1.

Effectiveness of twice daily azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Azelastine nasal spray (Allergodil^®, Lastin^®, Afluon^®; Meda AB, Stockholm, Sweden) is a fast-acting, efficacious and well-tolerated H1-receptor antagonist for the treatment of rhinitis. In addition it also has mast-cell stabilizing and anti-inflammatory properties, reducing the concentration of leukotrienes, kinins and platelet activating factor in vitro and in vivo, as well as inflammatory cell migration in rhinitis patients. Well-controlled studies in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial rhinitis (PR) or vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) confirm that azelastine nasal spray has a rapid onset of action, and improves nasal symptoms associated with rhinitis such as nasal congestion and post-nasal drip. Azelastine nasal spray is effective at the lower dose of 1 spray as well at a dose of 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, but with an improved tolerability profile compared to the 2-spray per nostril twice daily regimen. Compared with intranasal corticosteroids, azelastine nasal spray has a faster onset of action and a better safety profile, showing at least comparable efficacy with fluticasone propionate (Flonase^®; GSK, USA), and a superior efficacy to mometasone furoate (Nasonex^®; Schering Plough, USA). In combination with fluticasone propionate, azelastine nasal spray exhibits greater efficacy than either agent used alone, and this combination may provide benefit for patients with difficult to treat seasonal allergic rhinitis. In addition, azelastine nasal spray can be used on an as-needed basis without compromising clinical efficacy. Compared with oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray also demonstrates superior efficacy and a more rapid onset of action, and is effective even in patients who did not respond to previous oral antihistamine therapy. Unlike most oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray is effective in alleviating nasal congestion, a particularly bothersome symptom for rhinitis sufferers. Azelastine nasal spray is well tolerated in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis. Bitter taste which seems to be associated with incorrect dosing technique is the most common side effect reported by patients, but this problem can be minimized by correct dosing technique.

Azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis

Rhinitis affects millions of people around the world, places a huge burden on the economy and reduces patients' health-related quality of life. Azelastine nasal spray is a second-generation antihistamine, indicated for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis in both adults and children. It offers a rapid onset of action (15 min) and flexibility of both dose (i.e., one or two sprays/nostril twice daily) as well as dosage (i.e., fixed or as needed). Compared with other agents used to treat allergic rhinitis, azelastine nasal spray exhibits superior efficacy to oral antihistamines (e.g., desloratadine and cetirizine), other intranasal antihistamines (e.g., levocabastine) and the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate, and comparable efficacy to the potent intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP). Combination therapy with intranasal FP has the potential to enhance clinical benefit, as the combination of azelastine and FP nasal sprays reduce symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients more than either agent alone. Azelastine nasal spray has an excellent safety profile.

Comparison of Azelastine versus Triamcinolone Nasal Spray in Allergic and Nonallergic Rhinitis

Background

Intranasal antihistamine has not been thoroughly studied in the treatment of rhinitis of different etiologies. This study was designed to show the comparative efficacy of nasal antihistamine and nasal corticosteroid in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR).

Methods

A comparison of the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray (AZENS) versus triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray (TANS) on total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), nasal peak inspiratory flow rate (nPIFR), and nasal cytology was studied in a 2-week randomized parallel-group trial. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were also analyzed.

Results

The study group consisted of 132 patients (100 women and 32 men) with a mean age of 33.14 ± 12.52 years. Sixty-nine patients had AR and 63 had NAR. Although TNSS including sneezing, itching, rhinorrhea, congestion—but not anosmia—significantly improved in both groups, intranasal azelastine reduced ocular symptoms greatly compared with intranasal triamcinolone (p = 0.05). Patients with NAR seemed to respond more to TANS, whereas AZENS was more useful in AR. The nPIFR improved in AR and NAR, with no significant difference between the treatment groups. Neither intranasal azelastine nor intranasal triamcinolone changed cytology in nasal lavage. Both medications were well tolerated, but AZENS led to more adverse events than TANS (56.9 and 19%, respectively; p = 0.001), mainly because of bitter taste. Scores on each domain of generic HRQoL (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) and mini–rhinitis QoL questionnaires, as well as ESS score, significantly improved in both groups, irrespective of rhinitis etiology.

Conclusions

In this first comparative demonstration, AZENS appears to be as effective as triamcinolone in symptom scores, nPIFR, ESS, and HRQoL, equally in AR and NAR.

Effects of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study in adolescents and adults

BACKGROUND

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is an allergen-induced inflammatory reaction that occurs during periods of high pollen count. Current treatments for SAR include allergen avoidance, systemic antihistamines, and steroidal and nonsteroidal intranasal sprays. Olopatadine is a selective antihistamine and an inhibitor of proinflammatory mediators from human mast cells. An intranasal formulation of olopatadine has been developed for the treatment of SAR.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) relative to azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% (AZE) and an inactive vehicle in the treatment of SAR.

METHODS

This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 21 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were aged > or =12 years and had a history of SAR and verified allergy to a prevalent local allergen. After a run-in period during which inactive vehicle was administered, patients were randomly assigned to OLO, AZE (active control), or inactive vehicle (identical to OLO; placebo control), 2 sprays in each nostril BID for 16 days. The timing of enrollment was correlated with the start of the allergy season at each site. Symptoms were recorded twice daily in an electronic diary. Efficacy assessments included changes in mean daily reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSS). Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs) and nasal, physical, and cardiovascular parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 544 patients were randomized. The mean age was 36 years (range, 12-77 years); men and boys represented 32.2% of the population; and the patients were predominantly white (75.4%). The mean reductions from baseline in reflective TNSS were 26.8%, 29.9%, and 18.4% with OLO, AZE, and inactive vehicle, respectively (P = 0.003 OLO vs inactive vehicle; 95% CI, -2.5% to 8.7% OLO vs AZE [non-inferiority]). The most commonly reported treatment-related AE in the OLO and AZE groups was bitter taste (12.2% [22/180] and 19.7% [37/188], respectively). The prevalence and intensity of bitter taste were significantly lower with OLO than with AZE (P = 0.05 and P = 0.005, respectively). In the group that received inactive vehicle, the prevalence of bitter taste was 1.7% (3/176). The prevalences of other treatment-related AEs, including epistaxis and nasal discomfort, were < or =3.7% in each group and did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study in patients aged > or =12 years with SAR, the percentage reduction from baseline in TNSS was significantly greater with OLO (2 sprays in each nostril BID) compared with vehicle and not significantly different from that with AZE. OLO and AZE were similarly well tolerated, with the exception of prevalence and intensity of bitter taste, which were significantly lower with OLO.

The pathophysiology, clinical impact, and management of nasal congestion in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Nasal congestion is a cardinal symptom of allergic rhinitis (AR). It is difficult to treat and is associated with decreased quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the clinical features of nasal congestion, its complex pathophysiology in the context of AR, its clinical impact, and the strengths and weaknesses of available treatments.

METHODS

Primary studies and reviews in the peer-reviewed, English-language literature were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1966-2008) and the Cochrane Library (1996-2008) using the terms nasal congestion, allergic rhinitis, pathophysiology, quality of life, and burden. Additional references were obtained by searching the reference lists of the identified articles. Abstracts from the 2006 and 2007 meetings of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology were also searched. Pertinent articles were included in the review if they were recently published and patient-focused, and if their authors were recognized leaders in the field.

RESULTS

A survey of 2355 patients with AR or their guardians found that almost half of respondents rated nasal congestion the most bothersome symptom; in a survey of 2500 adults with AR, 78% rated nasal congestion either extremely or moderately bothersome. Histamine and leukotrienes are major mediators of the allergic inflammation associated with nasal congestion, as indicated by reductions in nasal cross-sectional area in response to histamine challenge (P<0.001) and increases in nasal airway resistance in response to leukotriene challenge (P<0.05).Therapy for nasal congestion in AR is often hampered by limitations associated with the individual agents; for example, decongestants are effective in the control of nasal congestion, but their use is restricted by their adverse-event profiles. A meta-analysis of 16 controlled studies involving 2267 patients with AR found that intranasal corticosteroids provided significantly greater relief of nasal congestion than oral antihistamines (95% CI for combined standardized mean difference, -0.73 to -0.53). The results of several clinical trials have suggested that leukotriene-receptor antagonists may be associated with reduced nasal congestion; however, no agents in this class are currently approved for the treatment of nasal congestion in AR.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for therapies that are well tolerated and effective in relieving nasal congestion in AR.

[Antihistamines in allergic rhinitis]

Antihistamines are the first line of pharmacotherapy in allergic diseases, especially in allergic rhinitis. The article also presents the interesting 2005-2007 publications on the use of antihistamine in practical point of view, especially the newly introduced ones (desloratadine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine) and those which are to be introduced soon (rupatadine). The efficacy in skin histamine provocation model and various clinical model were discussed.

A novel and effective approach to treating rhinitis with nasal antihistamines

OBJECTIVES

To review existing treatments for rhinitis and summarize data available on the use of a nasal antihistamine (azelastine) in treating allergic and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant articles and references published between 1995 and 2007 regarding the treatment of allergic and vasomotor rhinitis were identified from PubMed, review articles, meta-analyses, and practice guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION

All key relevant articles were reviewed and the most relevant selected for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

The efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray in treating allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis have been determined in a number of U.S. multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. In all trials, azelastine was associated with a rapid onset of action and a sustained improvement over time in rhinitis, congestion, and other symptoms. In patients with allergic rhinitis, the combination of azelastine and nasal corticosteroids increased treatment efficacy by more than 40% compared with either product alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal antihistamine therapy represents an effective mode of drug delivery in patients with allergic and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis and is an important option for rhinitis therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required or if congestion is a major symptom. Use of azelastine plus nasal corticosteroids is effective in both allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis, suggesting that this combination represents an effective treatment strategy for all patients with either allergic or nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.