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

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.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of two doses of azelastine hydrochloride in perennial allergic rhinitis

Background

Azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) is a selective, non-sedating H1 antagonist with anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties, which can be used as an alternative to intranasal corticosteroids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new formulation of 0.15% AZE compared to that of the placebo at a dosage of two sprays per nostril twice daily for 4 weeks in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

Materials and methods

A total of 581 subjects were randomized in this double-blind (DB) placebo-controlled trial (NCT00712920) that compared 0.10% (1,096 μg daily) and 0.15% AZE (1,644 μg daily) to the placebo in PAR patients. The study consisted of a 7-day single-blind placebo lead-in period and a 28-day DB treatment period. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) for the entire 28-day study period of 0.15% AZE, two sprays per nostril BID compared to the placebo. The efficacy and safety of 0.15% AZE were compared to the placebo.

Results

Least square (LS) mean improvement from baseline in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) combined rTNSS was statistically significant for the 0.15% AZE group (p = 0.04) compared to the placebo group. LS mean improvement from baseline in the AM and PM combined rTNSS was 4.10 (4.26) units for 0.15% AZE and 3.81 (3.99) for 0.10% AZE. For individual symptoms, there was a statistically significant change in the LS mean (p = 0.04) improvement from baseline on the 12-h reflective assessment for the 0.15% AZE group for runny nose. Further numerical improvements were shown for itchy nose, nasal congestion, runny nose, and sneezing compared to the placebo. No deaths or serious adverse events related to the study medication were reported.

Conclusion

The present formulation of 0.15% AZE is safe and effective in relieving PAR symptoms. It effectively relieves nasal and non-nasal symptoms.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00712920.

Fluticasone Propionate with Azelastine Versus Standalone Fluticasone Propionate as Nasal Spray in Allergic Rhinitis: A Prospective Comparative Study in a Rural Population of Northern India

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a symptomatic condition of the nose, caused by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the nasal membranes. Allergic rhinitis is further split into two categories, based on the duration of symptoms: intermittent (IAR) or persistent (PER) disease. Oral or topical antihistamines and topical nasal steroids are the most popular and efficient treatments for allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

The present prospective comparative study was done between December 2021 to November 2022, with 64 subjects of PER divided into groups A and B. Group A patients received Fluticasone propionate (50 mcg) combined with Azelastine (140 mcg) nasal spray, whereas Group B patients received standalone Fluticasone propionate (50 mcg) nasal spray.

RESULTS

In both groups, the difference in mean TSS between the beginning and end of the 4-week study period was statistically significant (p for both < 0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, Group A had a TSS of 2.02 ± 0.83 and Group B was at 3.80 ± 1.49; the difference between them was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

According to results obtained from the current study, while both fluticasone propionate with azelastine nasal spray and standalone fluticasone propionate nasal spray are widely used for control of symptoms in PER, the former offers better results with significant reduction of symptoms when compared to the latter.

Comparison of the Effects of Azelastine and Fluticasone Nasal Sprays in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a highly prevalent, allergen-induced disease. Intranasal corticosteroids are currently the first-line therapy for these patients. It is uncertain whether intranasal antihistamines have comparable efficacy. This study compares effects of Azelastine and Fluticasone nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis. Prospective comparative study including 240 patients with allergic rhinitis was conducted with 120 each in fluticasone and azelastine group. Nasal sprays were given for period of three months along with an oral antihistamine. Follow up was done after three months. Pre and post treatment symptom assessment were done using Total nasal symptom score. The median TNSS in pre and post treatment of group A (fluticasone) is 10(4) and 1(3) which shows statistical significance with p value < 0.001. Median TNSS in pre and post treatment of group B (azelastine) is 9(4) and 1(2) which shows statistical significance with p value < 0.001. The median TNSS in pre and post treatment value between Group A and B shows no statistically significant difference between two groups with p value 0.56 and 0.06 respectively. Intranasal azelastine and fluticasone had comparable efficacy in symptom control in patients with allergic rhinitis. Azelastine due to its lesser side effects, can be safely used in children, patients with glaucoma and cataract. Azelastine may be considered as a safer replacement to fluticasone for long term use in patients with allergic rhinitis. A larger multicentric study with a bigger sample size may be required to confirm the efficacy and safety profile of azelastine nasal spray.

Efficacy of Topical Azelastine and Fluticasone Dipropionate Combination in Children With Adenoid Hypertrophy

OBJECTIVE

Adenoid hypertrophy (AH) is one of the common childhood diseases. Surgical and non-surgical treatment of AH in children is planned according to the severity of symptoms and associated complications. In recent years, treatment methods with intranasal sprays have been reported quite frequently in uncomplicated cases. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a new combination of azelastine - fluticasone (AZE-FLU) (137mcg azelastine and 50mcg fluticasone) nasal spray in children with uncomplicated AH.

METHODS

Sixty-five children diagnosed with AH were included in the study. The mean age of the children was 7.42 ± 2.26 (4-13 years). The cohort consisted of 29 males and 36 females. All children were evaluated clinically and endoscopically. AZE-FLU nasal spray was applied to both nostrils twice a day for three months. Adenoid/choana ratio and symptom scores were evaluated before treatment and at the end of the 12th week.

RESULTS

At the end of 24 weeks of AZE-FLU application, there was a statistically significant decrease in both adenoid/choana ratio and symptom scores. While the initial adenoid/choana (A/C) score was 3.57 ± 0.58, it decreased to 1.74 ± 0.61 following treatment. A dramatic decrease in total symptom scores was observed. The total symptom score average was 15.63 ± 1.28 before treatment, while it was 2.31 ± 1.4 after the treatment with the difference being statistically significant (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the effectiveness of AZE-FLU nasal spray on AH was investigated for the first time. This treatment provides an effective alternative to the surgical approach in children with uncomplicated adenoid hypertrophy. Using this protocol, 96% of patients were removed from the surgery list.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

is IV.

Bioactive components of different nasal spray solutions may defeat SARS-Cov2: repurposing and in silico studies

The recent outbreak "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)" is caused by fast-spreading and highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2). This virus enters into the human respiratory system by binding of the viral surface spike glycoprotein (S-protein) to an angiotensin-converting enzyme2 (ACE2) receptor that is found in the nasal passage and oral cavity of a human. Both spike protein and the ACE2 receptor have been identified as promising therapeutic targets to develop anti-SARS-CoV2 drugs. No therapeutic drugs have been developed as of today except for some vaccines. Therefore, potent therapeutic agents are urgently needed to combat the COVID-19 infections. This goal would be achieved only by applying drug repurposing and computational approaches. Thus, based on drug repurposing approach, we have investigated 16 bioactive components (1-16) from different nasal spray solutions to check their efficacies against human ACE2 and SARS-CoV2 spike proteins by performing molecular docking and molecular dynamic (MD) simulation studies. In this study, three bioactive components namely ciclesonide (8), levocabastine (13), and triamcinolone acetonide (16) have been found as promising inhibitory agents against SARS-CoV2 spike and human ACE2 receptor proteins with excellent binding affinities, comparing to reference drugs such as nafamostat, arbidol, losartan, and benazepril. Furthermore, MD simulations were performed (triplicate) for 100 ns to confirm the stability of 8, 13, and 16 with said protein targets and to compute MM-PBSA-based binding-free energy calculations. Thus, bioactive components 8, 13, and 16 open the door for researchers and scientist globally to investigate them against SARS-CoV2 through in vitro and in vivo analysis.

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.

Fexofenadine: review of safety, efficacy and unmet needs in children with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common undiagnosed chronic condition in children. Moderate/severe AR symptoms significantly impair quality of life, and cause sleep disruption, absenteeism and decreased productivity. Additionally, untreated AR predisposes children to asthma and other chronic conditions. Although intranasal corticosteroids are the most effective pharmacologic treatment for AR, oral antihistamines are often preferred. First-generation antihistamines may be chosen to relieve AR symptoms as they are inexpensive and widely available; however, they cause sedative and cardiovascular negative effects due to poor receptor selectivity. Therefore, second-generation antihistamines were developed to reduce adverse effects while retaining efficacy. There are fewer clinical trials in children than adults, therefore, efficacy and safety data is limited, particularly in children under 6 years, highlighting the need to generate these data in young children with AR. Fexofenadine, a highly selective second-generation antihistamine, effectively alleviates symptoms of AR, is non-sedating due to decreased blood-brain barrier permeability, and is devoid of cardiovascular side effects. Importantly, fexofenadine relieves the ocular symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, which occur concomitantly with AR, improving quality of life. Overall, fexofenadine displays a favorable safety profile and results in greater treatment satisfaction in children compared with other second-generation antihistamines. This review aimed to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of fexofenadine with other available first- and second-generation antihistamines in children with AR.

Use of Azelastine and Sodium Chloride Spray for Prevention of Sinusitis in ICU Admitted Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Nosocomial sinusitis is a common and less attended complication in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU). It can cause several problems, such as prolongation of hospitalization, comorbidity, and mortality in patients. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of azelastine (second-generation antihistamine) and sodium chloride spray on sinusitis prevention in ICU admitted patients.

Methods:

In this randomized, open-label, and parallel clinical trial a total of 126 patients were enrolled (63 patients per arm). Finally, 121 patients (61 patients in the control group and 60 patients in the treatment group) completed the study, and 120 patients entered the final analysis. In the treatment group, during 24 h after the insertion of nasogastric tube azelastine and sodium chloride sprays were administered (one puff from each spray every 12 h) while no intervention was conducted in the control group. Primary and secondary end-points were evaluated within 10 days of the study period.

Results:

The incidence of sinusitis and pneumonia (18.3% and 16.6% in the control group compared to 8.3% and 3.3% in the treatment group, respectively) in the treatment group showed a decreasing trend; however, only the difference of pneumonia was statistically significant between groups (P = 0.03). In addition to the clinical pulmonary infection score, nasal and tracheal secretions were significantly improved in the treatment group (P = 0.03, P < 0.001, and P = 0.01, respectively).

Conclusions:

The findings of the present study offer an inexpensive, low-risk, and efficacious intervention for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections in ICU patients.

The Nose as a Route for Therapy: Part 1. Pharmacotherapy

This article reviews nasal structure and function in the light of intranasal pharmacotherapy. The nose provides an accessible, fast route for local treatment of nose and sinus diseases, with lower doses than are necessary systemically and few adverse effects. It can also be used for other medications as it has sufficient surface area protected from local damage by mucociliary clearance, absence of digestive enzymes, responsive blood flow, and provides a rapid route to the central nervous system.

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone furoate in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND:

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is characterized by nasal itch, sneezing, watery or mucous rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and nasal or pharyngeal irritation. If untreated, AR can impair patients' quality of life (QOL). Azelastine hydrochloride (AH), histamine receptor antagonists, has anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties. Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an anti-inflammatory agent with action on mast cells, eosinophils, neutrophils, macrophages, and lymphocytes. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these medications in AR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Patients in the study had been clinically diagnosed with AR. In each group, there were 75 randomized patients who were to receive either FF (27.5 μg/spray) or AH (0.10%) intranasally twice daily. Assessment in terms of symptoms (total nasal symptom score), signs (endoscopic staging), QOL, eosinophil count, and sensory attributes was done at baseline, day 7, and day 15. Adverse effects were recorded, and the cost incurred was analyzed. Paired and umpaired t-test were used to compare symptom scores, QOL scores, and absolute eosinophil count within and between the groups, respectively.

RESULTS:

The total number of patients was 150 (76 males and 74 females); the mean age for FF group was 26.23 ± 5.2 years, and 26.96 ± 4.8 years for AH group. By day 7, there was a reduction of all scores in both medications, but the reduction in reduction was highly significant with FF (P = 0.001). There was a significant reduction (P = 0.001) in absolute eosinophil count both in blood and nasal smears by day 15 in both the groups; the reduction was significant (P = 0.001) with fluticasone. Adverse reactions were reported by 33.3% of patients receiving FF and 28% patients receiving AH.

CONCLUSION:

Fluticasone furoate produced sustained relief of symptoms, signs, and sensory attributes with a greater reduction in eosinophil count in comparison with AH in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis (Revised Edition 2017; First edition 2007)

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, first published in 2007. It was produced by the Standards of Care Committee of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, using accredited methods. Allergic rhinitis is common and affects 10-15% of children and 26% of adults in the UK, it affects quality of life, school and work attendance, and is a risk factor for development of asthma. Allergic rhinitis is diagnosed by history and examination, supported by specific allergy tests. Topical nasal corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for moderate to severe disease. Combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine is more effective than either alone and provides second line treatment for those with rhinitis poorly controlled on monotherapy. Immunotherapy is highly effective when the specific allergen is the responsible driver for the symptoms. Treatment of rhinitis is associated with benefits for asthma. Non-allergic rhinitis also is a risk factor for the development of asthma and may be eosinophilic and steroid-responsive or neurogenic and non- inflammatory. Non-allergic rhinitis may be a presenting complaint for systemic disorders such as granulomatous or eosinophilic polyangiitis, and sarcoidoisis. Infective rhinitis can be caused by viruses, and less commonly by bacteria, fungi and protozoa.

Modulation of Allergic Inflammation in the Nasal Mucosa of Allergic Rhinitis Sufferers With Topical Pharmaceutical Agents

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic upper respiratory disease estimated to affect between 10 and 40% of the worldwide population. The mechanisms underlying AR are highly complex and involve multiple immune cells, mediators, and cytokines. As such, the development of a single drug to treat allergic inflammation and/or symptoms is confounded by the complexity of the disease pathophysiology. Complete avoidance of allergens that trigger AR symptoms is not possible and without a cure, the available therapeutic options are typically focused on achieving symptomatic relief. Topical therapies offer many advantages over oral therapies, such as delivering greater concentrations of drugs to the receptor sites at the source of the allergic inflammation and the reduced risk of systemic side effects. This review describes the complex pathophysiology of AR and identifies the mechanism(s) of action of topical treatments including antihistamines, steroids, anticholinergics, decongestants and chromones in relation to AR pathophysiology. Following the literature review a discussion on the future therapeutic strategies for AR treatment is provided.

Effectiveness of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of adenoidal hyper-trophy in children

AIM

To evaluate the effects of topical azelastine treatment on symptoms related to adenoid hypertrophy and the size of adenoid tissue in children.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In total, 60 children who were found to have adenoid hypertrophy were included. A questionnaire on nasal symptoms, nasal endoscopy and skin prick tests was administered to all patients. All patients had complaints of chronic nasal obstruction symptoms and nasal endoscopy showed > 75% choanal obstruction, attributable to adenoid pads. The adenoid/nasopharyngeal areas were calculated. All of the patients underwent azelastine nasal spray therapy (1 spray per nostril, twice daily; 0.28 mg/dose) for 30 days. After 1 month, all children were reassessed. The efficacy of therapy, symptoms, adenoid / nasopharynx ratio, and obstruction ratio, obtained by endoscopy, were compared.

RESULTS

Azelastine treatment was well tolerated by all patients. After the first treatment period, the severity of symptoms, endoscopic grade, and adenoid size decreased in all of the 60 patients. There were significant improvements in total subjective symptoms (nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, cough, snoring, and obstructive sleep apnea) post-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine nasal spray may be useful in decreasing adenoid pad size and the severity of symptoms related to adenoidal hypertrophy. Hippokratia 2014; 18 (4): 340-345.

A four-way, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to determine the efficacy and speed of azelastine nasal spray, versus loratadine, and cetirizine in adult subjects with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis

Background

Azelastine has been shown to be effective against seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) is a validated model of experimental SAR. The objective of this double-blind, four-way crossover study was to evaluate the onset of action of azelastine nasal spray, versus the oral antihistamines loratadine 10 mg and cetirizine 10 mg in the relief of the symptoms of SAR.

Methods

70 participants, aged 18-65, were randomized to receive azelastine nasal spray, cetirizine, loratadine, or placebo after controlled ragweed pollen exposure in the EEU. Symptoms were evaluated using the total nasal symptom score (TNSS). The primary efficacy parameter was the onset of action as measured by the change from baseline in TNSS.

Results

Azelastine displayed a statistically significant improvement in TNSS compared with placebo at all time points from 15 minutes through 6 hours post dose. Azelastine, cetirizine, and loratadine reduced TNSS compared to placebo with an onset of action of 15 (p < 0.001), 60 (p = 0.015), and 75 (p = 0.034) minutes, respectively. The overall assessment of efficacy was rated as good or very good by 46% of the participants for azelastine, 51% of the participants for cetirizine, and 30% of the participants for loratadine compared to 18% of the participants for placebo.

Conclusions

Azelastine’s onset of action for symptom relief was faster than that of cetirizine and loratadine. The overall participant satisfaction in treatment with azelastine is comparable to cetirizine and statistically superior to loratadine. These results suggest that azelastine may be preferential to oral antihistamines for the rapid relief of SAR symptoms.

In vitro characterisation of the duration of action of the histamine-1 receptor antagonist azelastine

Azelastine is a selective antagonist at the human histamine-1 receptor and is used clinically in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In this study we have investigated its duration of action in vitro in an effort to characterise the receptor and tissue components involved. Chinese hamster ovary cell membrane fragments were used to determine the kinetics of azelastine at the H₁ receptor in a radioligand binding assay. Further duration of action studies were completed in tissue preparations using guinea-pig trachea and human bronchus. In radioligand binding studies, azelastine reached steady state at the H₁ receptor after approximately 41 min and exhibited a significantly slower dissociation rate constant from the receptor than the first generation antihistamine, diphenhydramine. In washout studies completed in guinea-pig and human airway in vitro tissue preparations, azelastine continued to antagonise the effects of histamine at the H₁ receptor for at least 18 h post-washout of the antagonist. This outcome was reversed following removal of the epithelium from guinea-pig isolated tracheal strips. These studies indicate there is a tissue component contributing to azelastine's duration of action, in addition to its direct H₁ receptor binding, with evidence suggesting a role for the epithelial layer.