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.

A Clinical Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of MP-AzeFlu Nasal Spray in Comparison to Commercially Available Azelastine Hydrochloride and Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Sprays in Chinese Volunteers with Allergic Rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu nasal spray in comparison to commercially available azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate sprays in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

We conducted a 14-day multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active controlled prospective clinical study in adult and adolescent patients with AR, who had moderate-to-severe symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in combined 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) (morning [AM] + afternoon [PM]). The safety profile of the study medications was assessed through the recording, reporting, and analysis of baseline medical conditions, adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and focused nasal examination. Three hundred patients per treatment group were randomized, which led to a total sample size estimation of 900 patients.

RESULTS

MP-AzeFlu group showed significantly higher symptom reduction for the entire 2-week treatment period in rTNSS when compared with the AZE group (LS mean difference: - 1.96; 95% CI: - 2.53, - 1.39; p < 0.0001), or the FLU group (LS mean difference: - 0.98; 95% CI: - 1.55, - 0.41; p = 0.0007). The results of adult RQLQ showed improvement in QoL in all treatment groups. Except for dysgeusia (bitter taste) that was reported by more patients (13 [4.3%]) in the MP-AzeFlu group, the incidence of all other TEAEs in the MP-AzeFlu group was comparable or even lower than in other treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MP-AzeFlu, when administered as one spray per nostril twice daily for 14 days, alleviated AR symptoms in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe AR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03599791, Registered June 29, 2018, retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03599791 .

Insights of different analytical approaches for estimation of budesonide as COVID-19 replication inhibitor in its novel combinations: green assessment with AGREE and GAPI approaches

Simple, direct, rapid, and sensitive HPLC and spectrophotometric methods were established for simultaneous estimation of a novel combination of budesonide and azelastine (BUD/AZL) in their laboratory-prepared mixture and dosage form according to the medicinally recommended ratio 1:4.28. Budesonide is an important inhalation corticosteroid that plays a vital role in the inhibition of COVID-19 replication and cytokine production. The first chromatographic method was created for the simultaneous estimation of BUD epimers in the presence of AZL with excellent efficiency in a relatively short chromatographic run (< 9 min). The separation of BUD epimers with AZL was carried out on a C₁₈ column using acetonitrile: phosphate buffer of pH 3.5 adjusted by 0.2 M orthophosphoric acid (40:60, v/v) as a mobile phase, UV detection at 230 nm and a flow rate of regulated at 2 mL/min. Besides, three spectrophotometric methods were applied for the simultaneous determination of the provided mixture adopting zero order, first order derivative, and ratio first derivative approaches. The Zero-order spectrophotometry was used for the determination of AZL in presence of BUD, where BUD shows no absorbance at 290 nm. The first derivative amplitude at 265 nm (¹D₂₆₅) (zero-crossing of AZL) and the ratio of first derivative amplitudes at 270 nm (¹DD₂₇₀) using 10.0 µg mL^-1 AZL as divisor was chosen for the simultaneous determination of BUD in the presence of AZL in the binary mixture. The proposed methods were found to be rectilinear in the concentration range of (0.4-40.0 µg mL^-1) and (0.05-40.0 µg mL^-1) for BUD and AZL, respectively in the HPLC method. Whereas the concentration range for AZL in the zero-order method was (1.0-35.0 µg mL^-1) and for BUD in the first derivative and ratio derivative method was (6.0-20.0 µg mL^-1). Validation of the suggested approaches according to the ICH criteria was performed. Furthermore, to ensure the proposed approaches' greenness, The AGREE and GAPI metrics were utilized, and the afforded results revealed an excellent greenness of the proposed approaches.

A green spectrophotometric method for the simultaneous determination of nasal binary mixture used in respiratory diseases: Applying isosbestic point and chemometric approaches as a resolving tool, greenness evaluation

Nasal drug combination is a very useful therapy for elevating the symptoms of various respiratory diseases as seasonal allergic rhinitis and infectious respiratory illness as pandemic COVID-19. One of best combination is Fluticasone propionate (FLU) and Azelastine (AZE). In this study, different UV spectrophotometric and chemometric methods have been applied for quantitative analysis of FLU and AZE without previous separation in their pure form, laboratory prepared mixture and pharmaceutical dosage form. Absorbance subtraction (AS) and Amplitude modulation (AM) spectrophotometric methods have been applied for the simultaneous determination of the cited drugs. Besides, three well-known chemometric techniques; namely, classical least squares (CLS), partial least square (PLS), and principal component regression (PCR) have been applied for the simultaneous analysis of both drugs by using spectrophotometric data. To be friendly to the environment, the greenness of the proposed methods was taken into consideration and evaluation of the analytical methods' greenness was done using two green analytical chemistry metrics known as, Analytical Greenness Calculator and an eco-scale scoring method. They indicated that the methods were environmentally friendly in relation to numerous approaches like instrument, reagents, and safety of waste. Analyzing laboratory prepared mixtures including different quantities of FLU and AZE, as well as their marketed dose form, was used to assess the selectivity of the applied methods. The validity of the developed methods was investigated by applying the standard addition technique. The resulting data were statistically compared to those obtained by the official or reported HPLC methods for FLU and AZE, which revealed no significant difference in accuracy and precision at p = 0.05.

Azelastine a potent antihistamine agent, as hypolipidemic and modulator for aortic calcification in diabetic hyperlipidemic rats model

AIM

Our study aimed to illustrate the effect of the antihistaminic drug azelastine on aortic calcification in diabetic hyperlipidemic (DH) rats along with the underlying molecular mechanism.

METHODS

Twenty-four male albino Wistar rats were categorised into four groups. One group received normal rodent chow (normal group), while the other groups were rendered diabetic and hyperlipidemic; one received no drugs and served as a positive control while the other two groups received either azelastine (4 mg/kg) or 10-dehydrogingerdione (10 mg/kg) orally and daily for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Azelastine significantly reduced blood glucose, HbA1c and serum ALP, OCN, downregulated apo B, improved the lipid profile (LDL-c decrease and HDL-c increase), attenuated calcium deposition and aortic calcification as compared to control group. 10-DHGD showed comparatively lower effect.

CONCLUSION

Anti-calcifying effect of azelastine might be related to upregulation of apo A (HDL-c) and downregulation of apo B mRNA expression indeed good modulator of aortic calcification.

IMPACT STATEMENT

Many studies have indicated that high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-c) is inversely correlated with atherosclerotic plaque progression and could reduce cardiovascular disease risk. An anti-calcifying effect of HDL-c has been reported and targeting this lipoprotein may therefore be a valuable approach to vascular calcification control. Azelastine is a selective H1 antagonist that was identified to increase mRNA expression of apolipoprotein A. This encouraged us to investigate the effect of azelastine on lipid profile and markers of aortic calcification in DH rats. Our findings showed that azelastine ameliorated aortic calcification and increased apoA expression along with a decline in apo B. This may represent the underlying mechanism while the histopathological findings offered a significant support to the collected biochemical data.

Synchronous Fluorescence as a Green and Selective Method for the Simultaneous Determination of Cetirizine and Azelastine in Aqueous Humor

A green, simple, quick and economical method is implemented for the first time for the simultaneous estimation of cetirizine (CTZ) and azelastine (AZE) as co-administered eye drops. The method relies on synchronous spectrofluorimetry with ∆λ = 60 nm. Cetirizine can be estimated at 231 nm and AZE can be measured at 294 nm, each at the other’s zero crossing point. All factors affecting the method were studied and properly optimized. Good correlation was obtained in the range of 0.1–2 µg mL⁻¹ for both drugs. The limits of detection were 0.014 and 0.010 µg mL⁻¹ and limits of quantitation were 0.043 and 0.029 µg mL⁻¹ for CTZ and AZE, respectively. Moreover, ICH guidelines were carried out to validate the adopted method. The method was suitable for the analysis of CTZ and AZE in synthetic mixtures, eye drops and aqueous humor. The mean percentage of recoveries of CTZ and AZE in spiked aqueous humor were 99.83 and 99.37, respectively. Furthermore, Green Analytical Procedure Index (GAPI) and analytical Eco-scale approaches were used to evaluate the greenness of the suggested method.

MP-AzeFlu in Moderate-to-Severe Allergic Rhinitis: A Literature Review

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is prevalent, and many patients present with moderate-to-severe symptomatic disease. The majority of patients are not satisfied with their AR treatment, despite the use of concurrent medications. These gaps underscore the need for treatment with more effective options for moderate-to-severe AR. The authors' objective was to review systematically the efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of AR. The primary outcomes studied were nasal, ocular, and total symptoms. Other outcomes included time to onset and of AR control, quality of life, and safety. Searches of PubMed and Cochrane databases were conducted on May 14, 2020, with no date restrictions, to identify publications reporting data on MP-AzeFlu. Clinical studies of any phase were included. Studies were excluded if they were not in English, were review articles, did not discuss the safety and efficacy of MP-AzeFlu for AR symptoms. Treatment of AR with MP-AzeFlu results in effective, sustained relief of nasal and ocular symptoms, and faster onset and time to control compared with intranasal azelastine or fluticasone propionate. Long-term use of MP-AzeFlu was safe, with benefits in children, adults, and adults aged ≥65 years. Other treatment options, including fluticasone propionate and azelastine alone or the combination of intranasal corticosteroids and oral antihistamine, do not provide the same level of efficacy as MP-AzeFlu in terms of rapid and sustained relief of the entire AR symptom complex. Furthermore, MP-AzeFlu significantly improves patient quality of life. MP-AzeFlu is a currently available combination that may satisfy all these patient needs and expectations.

Azelastine inhibits viropexis of SARS-CoV-2 spike pseudovirus by binding to SARS-CoV-2 entry receptor ACE2

A recent study have reported that pre-use of azelastine is associated with a decrease in COVID-19 positive test results among susceptible elderly people. Besides, it has been reported that antihistamine drugs could prevent viruses from entering cells. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether azelastine have antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and the possible mechanism. Here, we discovered antihistamine azelastine has an affinity to ACE2 by cell membrane chromatography (CMC); Then we determined the equilibrium dissociation constant (K_D) of azelastine-ACE2 as (2.58 ± 0.48) × 10^-7 M by surface plasmon resonance (SPR). The results of molecular docking showed that azelastine could form an obvious hydrogen bond with Lys353. The pseudovirus infection experiments showed that azelastine effectively inhibited viral entry (EC₅₀ = 3.834 μM). Our work provides a new perspective for the screening method of drug repositioning for COVID-19, and an attractive and promising drug candidate for anti-SARS-CoV-2.

Maraviroc, celastrol and azelastine alter Chlamydia trachomatis development in HeLa cells

Introduction . Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) is an obligate intracellular bacterium, causing a range of diseases in humans. Interactions between chlamydiae and antibiotics have been extensively studied in the past.Hypothesis/Gap statement: Chlamydial interactions with non-antibiotic drugs have received less attention and warrant further investigations. We hypothesized that selected cytokine inhibitors would alter Ct growth characteristics in HeLa cells.Aim. To investigate potential interactions between selected cytokine inhibitors and Ct development in vitro.Methodology. The CCR5 receptor antagonist maraviroc (Mara; clinically used as HIV treatment), the triterpenoid celastrol (Cel; used in traditional Chinese medicine) and the histamine H1 receptor antagonist azelastine (Az; clinically used to treat allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis) were used in a genital in vitro model of Ct serovar E infecting human adenocarcinoma cells (HeLa).Results. Initial analyses revealed no cytotoxicity of Mara up to 20 µM, Cel up to 1 µM and Az up to 20 µM. Mara exposure (1, 5, 10 and 20 µM) elicited a reduction of chlamydial inclusion numbers, while 10 µM reduced chlamydial infectivity. Cel 1 µM, as well as 10 and 20 µM Az, reduced chlamydial inclusion size, number and infectivity. Morphological immunofluorescence and ultrastructural analysis indicated that exposure to 20 µM Az disrupted chlamydial inclusion structure. Immunofluorescence evaluation of Cel-incubated inclusions showed reduced inclusion sizes whilst Mara incubation had no effect on inclusion morphology. Recovery assays demonstrated incomplete recovery of chlamydial infectivity and formation of structures resembling typical chlamydial inclusions upon Az removal.Conclusion. These observations indicate that distinct mechanisms might be involved in potential interactions of the drugs evaluated herein and highlight the need for continued investigation of the interaction of commonly used drugs with Chlamydia and its host.

The complex pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis: scientific rationale for the development of an alternative treatment option

Allergic rhinitis (AR) poses a global health problem and can be challenging to treat. Many of the current symptomatic treatments for AR have been available for decades, yet there has been little improvement in patient quality of life or symptom burden over the years. In this review, we ask why this might be and explore the pathophysiological gaps that exist within the various AR treatment classes. We focus on the benefits and drawbacks of different treatment options and delivery routes for AR treatments and consider how, given what is known about AR pathophysiology and symptomatology, patients may be offered more effective treatment options for rapid, effective, and sustained AR control. In particular, we consider how a new AR preparation, MP-AzeFlu (Dymista^®, Meda, Sweden), comprising a formulation of an intranasal antihistamine (azelastine hydrochloride), an intranasal corticosteroid (fluticasone propionate), and excipients delivered in a single spray, may offer benefits over and above single and multiple AR therapy options. We review the evidence in support of this treatment across the spectrum of AR disease. The concept of AR control is also reviewed within the context of new European Union and Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif-Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma initiatives.

Superior effect of MP-AzeFlu than azelastine or fluticasone propionate alone on reducing inflammatory markers

BACKGROUND

MP-AzeFlu, intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP), is superior to AZE or FP alone for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the precise anti-inflammatory mechanism of action of MP-AzeFlu has not been characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the anti-inflammatory effects of MP-AzeFlu compared with AZE or FP alone in an established in vitro model of eosinophilic inflammation.

METHODS

Nasal mucosal epithelial cells and peripheral blood eosinophils were obtained from human volunteers. Epithelial cells were stimulated with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) in the presence of MP-AzeFlu, AZE, or FP (1:102 to 1:105 dilution). Concentrations of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) were measured by ELISA. Eosinophils were incubated in 10% human epithelial cell-conditioned medium (HECM) and survival assessed by trypan blue dye exclusion. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM percentage secretion/survival compared with FBS/HECM (respectively).

RESULTS

FP and MP-AzeFlu (all dilutions) and AZE (1:102) significantly reduced IL-6 secretion and eosinophil survival compared with positive controls. At 1:102 dilution, IL-6 secretion was significantly lower with MP-AzeFlu (38.3 ± 4.2%, compared with FBS = 100%) than with AZE (76.1 ± 4.9%) or FP (53.0 ± 4.9%). At 1:102 dilution, eosinophil survival was significantly lower with MP-AzeFlu at day 3 (17.5 ± 3.0%) and day 4 (2.4 ± 1.4%, compared with HECM = 100%) than with AZE (day 3: 75.2 ± 7.2%; day 4: 44.0 ± 9.7%) or FP (day 3: 38.5 ± 3.5%; day 4: 14.6 ± 4.0%).

CONCLUSION

Greater reductions in cytokine secretion and eosinophil survival observed with MP-AzeFlu in vitro may underlie MP-AzeFlu's superior clinical efficacy vs. AZE or FP alone observed in AR patients.

Investigation of the spectrofluorimetric behavior of azelastine and nepafenac: Determination in ophthalmic dosage forms

The first spectrofluorimetric report investigating the fluorimetric behavior of the antihistaminic drug, azelastine (AZEL), and the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, nepafenac (NEP), either in bulk or in their dosage forms, eye drops and ophthalmic suspension. After a full investigation of the factors that may influence their spectrofluorimetric behavior: pH, different organized media and organic solvents, the optimum factors were set in order to enable the analysis of each drug with maximum sensitivity. The AZEL spectrofluorimetric analysis was set at 286/364 (λ_ex/λ_em) in distilled water while for NEP, the analysis was set at 228/303 (λ_ex/λ_em) in methanol. The linearity range for AZEL was from 0.1 to 1.5 μg/mL while that of NEP was from 0.2 to 1.5 μg/mL. The linearity yielded good regression parameters with low LOD (0.022 and 0.032 μg/mL for AZEL and NEP, respectively) and LOQ (0.073 and 1.08 μg/mL for AZEL and NEP, respectively) when compared with those obtained from many previous spectroscopic and chromatographic reports in literature. The method was ICH validated and was applied to the analysis of AZEL and NEP with good selectivity regarding the inactive ingredients.

Onset of Action of the Fixed Combination Intranasal Azelastine-Fluticasone Propionate in an Allergen Exposure Chamber

BACKGROUND

A fixed-dose combination of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu) is the most effective treatment of allergic rhinitis, but its onset of action requires further investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the onset of action of MP-AzeFlu with the free combination of oral loratadine (LORA) and intranasal fluticasone propionate (INFP).

METHODS

In this single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, 3-period crossover trial, allergic rhinitis symptoms were induced in asymptomatic patients by ragweed pollen challenge in an allergen environmental exposure chamber. Patients received single-dose MP-AzeFlu, LORA/INFP, or placebo and were monitored for 4 hours. The primary outcome was onset of action measured by total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Secondary measures were total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total score of the 7 nasal and ocular symptoms (T7SS), and the global visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 82 patients, of which 78 completed all treatments. TNSS was significantly reduced versus placebo from 5 minutes for MP-AzeFlu and 150 minutes for LORA/INFP onward (both P < .05) till the end of assessment (0-4 hours). MP-AzeFlu reduced TNSS to a greater extent at each time point from 5 to 90 minutes (P < .05) and over the entire assessment interval (P ≤ .005) versus LORA/INFP or placebo. No statistically significant difference between LORA/INFP and placebo was observed over the assessment interval (P = .182). The onset of action of MP-AzeFlu assessed by TOSS, T7SS, and VAS was 10 minutes, 2 hours earlier than with LORA/INFP.

CONCLUSION

MP-AzeFlu had a more rapid onset of action (5 minutes) and was more effective than LORA/INFP.

Effects of azelastine nasal spray on nasal and nasopharyngeal microflora

OBJECTIVE

Azelastine nasal spray is a topical antihistaminic drug for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis. This study aimed to investigate the effects of azelastine on nasal and nasopharyngeal microflora.

METHODS

Swab samples from 25 patients prescribed azelastine nasal spray monotherapy were collected just before treatment and after 1 month of treatment. After incubation of inoculates, the number of bacteria present in cultures was measured (in colony-forming units per millilitre).

RESULTS

Evaluation of the number of microflora revealed increased bacterial reproduction after treatment, but this difference was not statistically significant. The use of azelastine nasal spray decreased the reproduction of three potentially pathogenic bacteria; however, it did not affect the reproduction of other potentially pathogenic bacteria.

CONCLUSION

The use of azelastine nasal spray for one month did not have a statistically significant effect on the numbers of nasal and nasopharyngeal microflora; it is therefore safe from a microbiological viewpoint.

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.

Long-term, randomized safety study of MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system) in subjects with chronic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

MP29-02 is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (FP) in an advanced delivery system for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety of MP29-02 in subjects with chronic allergic (perennial) or nonallergic (vasomotor) rhinitis.

METHODS

This was a 1-year, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study in subjects with chronic allergic or nonallergic rhinitis. A total of 612 subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to (1) MP29-02, one spray per nostril twice daily (total daily doses of azelastine hydrochloride and FP were 548 mcg and 200 mcg, respectively); or (2) FP, 2 sprays per nostril once daily (total daily dose 200 mcg). Safety and tolerability assessments were made at months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12.

RESULTS

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low with both MP29-02 (9.4%) and FP (11.1%), with no evidence of late-occurring adverse events. Nasal examinations showed no evidence of nasal mucosal ulcerations or septal perforations with MP29-02, and the overall incidence of adverse findings was reduced as the study progressed. There were no unusual or unexpected ocular examination findings and no clinically important laboratory findings or clinically important differences between groups in fasting AM serum cortisol levels after 12 months of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

MP29-02 was well tolerated. There were no safety findings that would preclude the long-term use of MP29-02 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

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.