Safety and efficacy of azelastine nasal spray (Astelin NS) for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a 4-week comparative multicenter trial

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.

METHODS

The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Guidelines for the management of chronic cough in adults. Endorsed by the French speaking society of respiratory diseases (Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française, SPLF), the Société Française d'Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie et de Chirurgie de la Face et du Cou (SFORL), the Société Française de Phoniatrie et de Laryngologie (SFPL), the Société Nationale Française de Gastro-entérologie (SNFGE)

Patients with chronic cough experience a high alteration of quality of life. Moreover, chronic cough is a complex entity with numerous etiologies and treatments. In order to help clinicians involved in the management of patients with chronic cough, guidelines on chronic cough have been established by a group of French experts. These guidelines address the definitions of chronic cough and the initial management of patients with chronic cough. We present herein second-line tests that might be considered in patients with cough persistence despite initial management. Experts also propose a definition of unexplained or refractory chronic cough (URCC) in order to better identify patients whose cough persists despite optimal management. Finally, these guidelines address the pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions useful in URCC. Thus, amitryptilline, pregabalin, gabapentin or morphine combined with speech and/or physical therapy are a mainstay of treatment strategies in URCC. Other treatment options, such as P2 × 3 antagonists, are being developed.

[Guidelines for the management of chronic cough in adults]

Patients with chronic cough experience major alteration in their quality of life. Given its numerous etiologies and treatments, this disease is a complex entity. To help clinicians involved in patient management of patients, guidelines have been issued by a group of French experts. They address definitions of chronic cough and initial management of patients with this pathology. We present herein the second-line tests that might be considered in patients whose coughing has persisted, notwithstanding initial management. The experts have also put forward a definition of unexplained or refractory chronic cough (URCC), the objective being to more precisely identify those patients whose cough persists despite optimal management. Lastly, these guidelines indicate the pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions of use in URCC. Amitriptyline, pregabalin, gabapentin or morphine combined with speech and/or physical therapy are mainstays in treatment strategies. Other treatment options, such as P2X3 antagonists, are being developed and have generated high hopes among physicians and patients alike.

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.

Effects of H1 antihistamine addition to intranasal corticosteroid for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A combination of H1 antihistamine (AH) with intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is commonly prescribed to patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) who have an inadequate response to monotherapy. In this systematic review we aimed to determine the effects of AH combined with INCS (AH-INCS) for treating AR.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed using Medline and Embase. Randomized, controlled trials that studied the effects of AH-INCS vs INCS monotherapy for treating patients with AR were included. The primary outcomes were total nasal symptom scores, total ocular symptom scores, and disease-specific quality of life. The secondary outcomes were objective tests for nasal patency and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (4026 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with INCS, AH-INCS decreased total nasal symptom scores (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.19 to -0.06; p < 0.001; 10 trials, 3348 patients) and total ocular symptom scores (SMD, -0.12, 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.04; p = 0.003; 6 trials, 2378 patients). Subgroup analysis indicated no benefit with the oral AH-INCS combination but did show benefit with intranasal AH-INCS (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.09; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences with regard to disease-specific quality of life (SMD, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.02; p = 0.12; 6 trials, 1981 patients), nasal inspiratory flow (MD, -0.03 L/min; 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.50; p = 0.91; 1 trial, 54 patients), or adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal AH-INCS has benefit over INCS on nasal and ocular symptom improvement for treating AR. Oral AH-INCS is not recommended.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Effect of nasal antihistamine on secretory IgA in nasal lavage of rats

The humoral IgA is an immunoglobulin which plays a defensive role for organisms on mucosal surfaces. Today, intranasal antihistamines are effectively used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In our study, the effect of azelastine hydrochloride-a nasal antihistaminic-on humoral IgA of the nasal mucosa has been reviewed empirically. Twenty-four female Sprague-Dawley rats were included in our study. The rats were divided into three groups randomly. Group 1(azelastine hydrochloride): rats in this group had nasal azelastine hydrochloride (0.05%) applied for 30 days at 10 µl/nostril dosage. Group 2 (saline): saline (0.09%) was applied to the rats in this group for 30 days at 10 µl/nostril dosage. Group 3 (control): no application was made throughout the study. The chemicals applied in Groups 1 and 2 were applied to both nostrils by mounting a flexible micropipette to the end of an insulin injector. At the beginning of the study, nasal lavage was performed to both nostrils of the rats in every group on the 15th and 30th day to aspirate irrigation solution (distilled water). The aspirated liquids were kept at - 80° temperature and reviewed together at the end of study. Within-group comparisons: in Group 1 (azelastine hydrochloride), the humoral IgA value on the 15th day was significantly higher than the basal value (p = 0.037). There is a significant difference between humoral IgA value on the 30th day and humoral IgA value on the 15th day (p = 0.045). In Group 2 (saline), no significant difference is available between basal, 15th day and 30th day humoral IgA values (p = 0.265). In Group 3 (control), no significant difference is available between basal, 15th day and 30th day humoral IgA values (p = 0.374). Between-group comparison: there is no significant difference in between-group humoral IgA basal values (p = 0.714). On days 15 and 30, Humoral IgA value of Group 1 was significantly higher than that of Groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.013, p = 0.024, respectively). According to the results we achieved in our study, nasal antihistaminic (azelastine hydrochloride) significantly increases the level of humoral IgA. Our study is the first one in the literature to reveal a relation between nasal antihistaminic and humoral IgA and there is a further need for clinical, randomized and prospective studies.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Effect of azelastine on cardiac repolarization of guinea-pig cardiomyocytes, hERG K⁺ channel, and human L-type and T-type Ca²⁺ channel

Azelastine is a second generation histamine H₁-receptor antagonist used as an anti-asthmatic and anti-allergic drug that can induce QT prolongation and torsades de pointes. We investigated the acute effects of azelastine on human ether-a-go-go-related gene (hERG) channels, action potential duration (APD), and L-type (I(Ca,L)) and T-type Ca²⁺ current (I(Ca,T)) to determine the electrophysiological basis for its proarrhythmic potential. Azelastine increased the APD at 90% of repolarization concentration dependently, with an IC₅₀ of 1.08 nM in guinea-pig ventricular myocytes. We examined the effects of azelastine on the hERG channels expressed in Xenopus oocytes and HEK293 cells using two-microelectrode voltage-clamp and patch-clamp techniques. Azelastine induced a concentration-dependent decrease of the hERG current amplitude at the end of the voltage steps and tail currents. The IC₅₀ for the azelastine-induced block of the hERG currents expressed in HEK293 cells was 11.43 nM, while the drug inhibited I(Ca,L) and I(Ca,T) with IC₅₀ values of 7.60 and 26.21 μM, respectively. The S6 domain mutations, Y652A partially attenuated and F656A abolished hERG current block. These results suggest that azelastine is a potent blocker of hERG channels rather than I(Ca,L) or I(Ca,T), providing molecular mechanisms for the arrhythmogenic side effects during the clinical administration of azelastine.

Antihistamine therapy in allergic rhinitis

Antihistamines have long been a mainstay in the therapy for allergic rhinitis. Many different oral antihistamines are available for use, and they are classified as first generation or second generation based on their pharmacologic properties and side-effect profiles. The recent introduction of intranasal antihistamines has further expanded the role of antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Certain patient populations, such as children and pregnant or lactating women, require special consideration regarding antihistamine choice and dosing as part of rhinitis therapy.

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.

Allergic conjunctivitis and the impact of allergic rhinitis

Although nasal allergy has been prominent in allergy research, ocular allergy is increasingly recognized as a distinct symptom complex that imposes its own disease burden and reduction in patients' quality of life. In the past year, knowledge of the relationships between allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis has increased. Allergic conjunctivitis is highly prevalent and has a close epidemiologic relationship with allergic rhinitis. Both conditions also exhibit similar pathophysiologic mechanisms. Pathways of communication are thought to increase the likelihood of an inflammatory reaction at both sites following allergen exposure of nasal or ocular tissue. Clinical trials of intranasal therapies have demonstrated efficacy in allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis. Newer intranasal steroids decrease ocular symptoms, potentially achieving efficacy by suppressing the naso-ocular reflex, downregulation of inflammatory cell expression, or restoration of nasolacrimal duct patency. Proposed pathophysiologic interactions between allergic rhinitis and ocular allergy underscore the need for therapies with efficacy in both symptom sets.

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.

Review of the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and safety of azelastine hydrochloride

Rhinitis is one of the most common diseases in the general population. Although it is not a life-threatening condition, rhinitis can cause significant discomfort and, therefore, negatively impact quality of life. Several treatment options are available; however, optimal relief of symptoms is difficult to achieve for most patients. Azelastine hydrochloride (Astelin) nasal spray is the only prescription intranasal antihistamine available in the USA, and is approved for treating symptoms of both seasonal allergic rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis. Oral formulations of azelastine are available outside the USA for use in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, asthma and urticaria. Azelastine hydrochloride has demonstrated a favorable safety profile during approximately 20 years of clinical use.

Azelastine and olopatadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature supporting current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials focusing on the efficacy, safety, and recommended uses of the currently approved nasal antihistamines in the United States: azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%.

RESULTS

Azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%, have rapid onsets of action, are well tolerated, and have clinical efficacy for treating allergic rhinitis that is equal or superior to oral second-generation antihistamines. Both also have a clinically significant effect on nasal congestion. Azelastine is also approved for nonallergic rhinitis. Although older data suggest that intranasal steroids have greater clinical efficacy than nasal antihistamines, more recent comparisons in patients with mild to moderate disease have shown equal or noninferior efficacy. In addition, in contrast to oral antihistamines or leukotriene antagonists, the combination of a nasal antihistamine and intranasal steroid may provide additive benefits for treating patients with more severe disease.

CONCLUSION

The data support current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Future studies should address possible as needed use, the use of premixed antihistamine-steroid combinations, and the treatment of mixed rhinitis.

Evolving paradigm in the management of allergic rhinitis-associated ocular symptoms: role of intranasal corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Along with nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms such as itching, tearing, and redness are common, bothersome components of the allergic rhinitis (AR) profile. Treatment of the patient with ocular allergy symptoms should take into account a variety of factors, including severity of symptoms, convenience/compliance issues, and patient preferences.

OBJECTIVES

To review from the primary care perspective the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of ocular symptoms associated with AR, and to evaluate the emerging role of intranasal corticosteroids (INSs).

FINDINGS

A search of the PubMed database identified clinical trials that assessed efficacy of agents in reducing ocular allergy symptoms. Internet searches identified further information including data on over-the-counter agents for treatment of ocular symptoms. Searches were conducted using search terms such as pathophysiology, epidemiology, ocular allergy, quality of life, drug class, and drug names. Primary care physicians are often the first point of contact for patients with seasonal AR (SAR) or perennial AR (PAR) symptoms. Ocular allergy associated with SAR and PAR (seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis, respectively) is characterized by both early- and late-phase reactions, with symptoms often persisting long after allergen exposure. Non-pharmacologic measures such as allergen avoidance, use of artificial tears, and cool compresses are pertinent for all ocular allergy sufferers, but may not afford adequate symptom control. Pharmacotherapy options have traditionally included topical ophthalmic products for cases of isolated ocular symptoms, and oral antihistamines for patients with both nasal and ocular symptoms. However, this paradigm is changing with new evidence regarding the efficacy of INSs in reducing ocular symptoms. A number of meta-analyses and individual studies, most of which studied ocular symptoms as secondary variables, have demonstrated the ocular effects of INSs versus topical and oral antihistamines. Additional prospective studies on this topic are encouraged to provide further evidence for these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of their well-established efficacy in reducing nasal allergy symptoms, INSs offer a comprehensive treatment option in patients with nasal and ocular symptoms. Oral antihistamines and/or topical eye drops may also be necessary depending on symptom control.

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.

Efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray at a dose of 1 spray per nostril twice daily

BACKGROUND

Azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is available worldwide for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis. One spray per nostril twice daily is the most commonly recommended dose.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray, 1 spray per nostril twice daily, in patients with SAR.

METHODS

In 2 studies conducted in the United States we assessed 554 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR who were still symptomatic after a 1-week placebo lead-in period. Patients were randomized to 2 weeks of double-blind treatment with azelastine nasal spray, 1 spray per nostril twice daily, or placebo nasal spray. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in total nasal symptom score, consisting of sneezing, itchy nose, runny nose, and nasal congestion.

RESULTS

Mean differences in total nasal symptom score between the azelastine and placebo groups were significant in both studies: 2.69 vs 1.31 (P = .01) in study 1 and 3.68 vs 2.50 (P = .02) in study 2. Bitter taste was reported by 8.3% of patients treated with 1 spray per nostril twice daily compared with the labeled incidence of 19.7% with 2 sprays per nostril twice daily. Somnolence was reported by 1 patient (0.4%) using the 1-spray regimen compared with the labeled incidence of 11.5% using the 2-spray regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine nasal spray at a dose of 1 spray per nostril twice daily is effective and has improved tolerability compared with 2 sprays per nostril twice daily in patients with SAR.

Azelastine hydrochloride: a review of pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and tolerability

INTRODUCTION

Azelastine hydrochloride (Astelin) nasal spray 0.1% solution is a second-generation intranasal antihistamine available in the US for treatment of both seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis (VMR).

SCOPE

Searches of journal articles including the title word 'azelastine' from 1979 through the present were conducted by the product manufacturer primarily through Medline and EMBASE but also included, at various times, Dialog, Biosis, Toxline, and Diogenes (an adverse-event database). One limitation of the present review is that it could not exclude the possibility of publication bias, whereby findings from smaller studies and/or trials with negative findings may not have been published.

FINDINGS

Azelastine is a phthalazinone derivative with H(1)-receptor binding approximately tenfold greater than chlorpheniramine on a milligram-per-milligram basis. Azelastine has demonstrated a wide range of pharmacologic effects on chemical mediators of inflammation including leukotrienes, kinins, and platelet activating factor in vitro and in vivo. The molecule also has been shown to downregulate intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression and to reduce inflammatory cell migration in patients with rhinitis. Well-controlled studies in SAR and VMR demonstrated that azelastine nasal spray improves nasal symptoms of rhinitis, including congestion and postnasal drip, and has a rapid onset of action that appears likely due to topical activity. Azelastine nasal spray has demonstrated greater efficacy when used in combination with fluticasone propionate nasal spray when compared to either agent alone, and this combination may provide benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe rhinitis. Bitter taste is the most common side effect associated with azelastine nasal spray and this problem can be mitigated by the dosing technique recommended by the manufacturer in the product labeling. The incidence of somnolence also may be reduced with the recommended administration technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine is an effective, rapid-acting, and well-tolerated second-generation antihistamine that improves nasal symptoms associated with SAR and VMR. Clinical studies demonstrated that azelastine nasal spray can improve symptoms of SAR in patients who remained symptomatic after treatment with oral antihistamines and that azelastine nasal spray in combination with fluticasone nasal spray provided significantly (p < 0.05) greater relief than either agent alone in patients with SAR.

Meta-Analysis of Azelastine Nasal Spray for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials reported in English.

DATA SOURCE

Published literature from the PubMed-MEDLINE database.

PATIENTS

Patients aged at least 12 (United States) or 16 years (Europe) with allergic rhinitis or nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A global assessment of efficacy was used to estimate the number needed to treat for azelastine nasal spray compared with placebo or active comparators. The total symptom score was used to compare the effect size between azelastine and placebo. In five comparisons of azelastine and placebo, azelastine was most efficacious, with a summary number needed to treat of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3-10.0). In reviewing 11 studies of azelastine versus active comparators, we found no significant difference between azelastine and active comparators (number needed to treat 66.7, 95% CI 14.3 to infinity to 25). Azelastine was more efficacious than placebo in terms of total symptom score (effect size of 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.46).

CONCLUSION

Azelastine nasal spray was more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. No significant differences were observed between azelastine and active comparators for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; however, when azelastine was compared with oral antihistamines as monotherapy, the trend favored azelastine. Because azelastine appears to be as efficacious as oral antihistamines, the choice of treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis should depend on the patient's preference regarding the route of administration, adverse effects, and the cost of the drug.

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

Azelastine is a potent H(1)-antihistamine, which is available as a topical nasal spray and indicated for both seasonal allergic and non-allergic vasomotor rhinitis. In addition to its antihistaminic effects, it has also been shown to have a number of other potentially important attributes, including effects on cytokines, adhesion molecules and inflammatory cells. Azelastine nasal spray has been shown to benefit patients who have not responded adequately to loratadine and fexofenadine, and is significantly more efficacious than cetirizine and levocabastine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Given its unique pharmacologic properties and clinical profile, azelastine maintains an important role in the treatment of chronic rhinitis.

Impact of azelastine nasal spray on symptoms and quality of life compared with cetirizine oral tablets in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

In fall 2004, the first Azelastine Cetirizine Trial demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores with the use of azelastine nasal spray vs oral cetirizine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of azelastine nasal spray vs cetirizine on the TNSS and RQLQ scores in patients with SAR.

METHODS

This 2-week, double-blind, multicenter trial randomized 360 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR to azelastine, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, or cetirizine, 10-mg tablets once daily. The primary efficacy variable was the 12-hour reflective TNSS (rhinorrhea, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion). Secondary efficacy variables were individual symptom scores and the RQLQ score.

RESULTS

Azelastine nasal spray and cetirizine significantly improved the TNSS and individual symptoms compared with baseline (P < .001). The TNSS improved by a mean of 4.6 (23.9%) with azelastine nasal spray compared with 3.9 (19.6%) with cetirizine. Significant differences favoring azelastine nasal spray were seen for the individual symptoms of sneezing and nasal congestion. Improvements in the RQLQ overall (P = .002) and individual domain (P < or = .02) scores were greater with azelastine nasal spray. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine nasal spray and cetirizine effectively treated nasal symptoms in patients with SAR. Improvements in the TNSS and individual symptoms favored azelastine over cetirizine, with significant differences for nasal congestion and sneezing. Azelastine nasal spray significantly improved the RQLQ overall and domain scores compared with cetirizine.

Chronic upper airway cough syndrome secondary to rhinosinus diseases (previously referred to as postnasal drip syndrome): ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on postnasal drip syndrome (PNDS)-induced cough and the various causes of PNDS. Hereafter, PNDS will be referred to as upper airway cough syndrome (UACS).

METHODS

MEDLINE search (through May 2004) for studies published in the English language since 1980 on human subjects using the medical subject heading terms "cough," "causes of cough," "etiology of cough," "postnasal drip," "allergic rhinitis," "vasomotor rhinitis," and "chronic sinusitis." Case series and prospective descriptive clinical trials were selected for review. Also, any references from these studies that were pertinent to the topic were obtained.

RESULTS

In multiple prospective, descriptive studies of adults, PNDS due to a variety of upper respiratory conditions has been shown either singly or in combination with other conditions, to be the most common cause of chronic cough. The symptoms and signs of PNDS are nonspecific, and a definitive diagnosis of PND-induced cough cannot be made from the medical history and physical examination findings alone. Furthermore, the absence of any of the usual clinical findings does not rule out a response to treatment that is usually effective for PND-induced cough. The differential diagnosis of PNDS-induced cough includes allergic rhinitis, perennial nonallergic rhinitis, postinfectious rhinitis, bacterial sinusitis, allergic fungal sinusitis, rhinitis due to anatomic abnormalities, rhinitis due to physical or chemical irritants, occupational rhinitis, rhinitis medicamentosa, and rhinitis of pregnancy. Because of a high prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), GERD may occasionally mimic PNDS. A crucial unanswered question is whether the conditions listed above actually produce cough through a final common pathway of PND or whether, in fact, in some circumstances they cause irritation or inflammation of upper airway structures that directly stimulate cough receptors and produce cough independently of or in addition to any associated PND.

CONCLUSION

PNDS (ie, UACS) secondary to a variety of rhinosinus conditions is the most common cause of chronic cough. Because it is unclear whether the mechanisms of cough are the PND itself or the direct irritation or inflammation of the cough receptors located in the upper airway, the guideline committee has decided that, pending further data that address this difficult question, the committee unanimously recommends that the term upper airway cough syndrome be used in preference to postnasal drip syndrome when discussing cough associated with upper airway conditions.

Drug therapy for ocular allergy

The spectrum of ocular allergy ranges from mild, non-sight threatening disease, such as hay fever, to disorders such as atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC) which cause permanent ocular surface changes and reduced vision. The ideal treatment is with topical preparations. Launched topical preparations include anti-histamines and mast cell (MC) stabilisers, which are safe, but only moderately potent, steroids, which are very potent, but carry very serious side-effects, and cyclosporin A, which is not widely available and difficult to tolerate. There are a number of anti-histamines, MC stabilisers (and combinations thereof) and steroids in development which are of potential interest. Other possibilities for therapeutic intervention include inhibition of tryptase, cyclooxygenase (COX), leukotrienes (LTs), bradykinins (BKs), platelet activating factor (PAF) and immunoglobulin E (IgE). Therapies based on cytokine antagonism and agonism, T-cell inhibition and adhesion molecule antagonism might be expected to provide safe, but potent new modes of treatment. The increasing interest in research into the pathogenesis of ocular allergic inflammation may lead to more relevant approaches, such as eosinophil inhibition. Success will be highly dependent on the ability to produce suitable topical ophthalmic preparations.

Evidence-based strategies for treatment of allergic rhinitis

In this review, an evidence-based medicine approach to diagnosis and treatment for allergic rhinitis is reviewed. We performed a search of the medical literature for randomized, placebo-controlled trials of nonsedating antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, montelukast, azelastine, allergen immunotherapy, and anti-IgE. The mean numbers needed to treat were: nonsedating antihistamines--15.2; nasal corticosteroids--4.4; montelukast--14.3; azelastine--5.0; allergen immunotherapy--4.6; and anti-IgE--12.4. Treatment thresholds for use were: antihistamines--23%; nasal corticosteroids--8%; azelastine--16%; montelukast--8%; anti-IgE--50%; and immunotherapy--25%. When used appropriately, this information could become very useful for clinicians, particularly if cost, convenience, and other indirect factors can be included.

Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients who remain symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine

BACKGROUND

Currently available oral second-generation antihistamines do not provide adequate symptom relief for many allergy patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the ability of azelastine nasal spray to improve rhinitis symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis who remained symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-week study in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis. The study began with a 1-week, open-label lead-in period, during which patients received fexofenadine, 60 mg twice daily. Patients who improved less than 25% to 33% with fexofenadine were randomized to treatment with (1) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily; (2) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, plus fexofenadine, 60 mg twice daily; or (3) placebo (saline) nasal spray and placebo capsules twice daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to day 14 in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion symptom scores.

RESULTS

A total of 334 patients who remained symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine were included in the efficacy analysis. After 2 weeks of treatment, azelastine nasal spray (P = .007) and azelastine nasal spray plus fexofenadine (P = .003) significantly improved the TNSS compared with placebo. Azelastine nasal spray monotherapy was as effective as the combination of azelastine nasal spray plus fexofenadine as measured by the TNSS and individual symptoms of the TNSS.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine nasal spray is effective monotherapy for patients who remain symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine and should be considered in the initial management of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in allergic rhinitis

Leukotriene modifiers have been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of asthma. Because of this success, and the fact that leukotrienes can be recovered not only from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid but also nasal lavage fluid, some researchers have suggested that these medications may also be useful for treating allergic rhinitis. Because the upper and lower airways are linked physically, there has been an assumption that therapy for upper and lower airway disease should be similar. This critical appraisal examines available data both supporting and refuting the emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Although many studies have shown an improvement in nasal symptoms when comparing a leukotriene modifier with placebo, few studies have conclusively shown that a leukotriene modifier is any more effective in treating allergic rhinitis than an antihistamine. Results from several reported studies suggest that the addition of a leukotriene antagonist to an antihistamine is no more efficacious than antihistamine alone. However, many of these studies were small and/or primarily designed to examine the asthmatic response, with nasal symptoms being a lesser endpoint. To better understand how, where, and when leukotriene modifiers should be used in the armamentarium of therapies for allergic rhinitis, larger clinical investigations designed specifically to study allergic rhinitis need to be undertaken. We conclude that currently, the data do not support widespread use of a leukotriene modifier with or without an antihistamine in place of an intranasal corticosteroid with or without an antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Safety and tolerability profiles of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines are efficacious topical therapies in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. This review addresses their relative roles in the management of this disease, focusing on their safety and tolerability profiles. The intranasal route of administration delivers drug directly to the target organ, thereby minimising the potential for the systemic adverse effects that may be evident with oral therapy. Furthermore, the topical route of delivery enables the use of lower doses of medication. Such therapies, predominantly available as aqueous formulations following the ban of chlorofluorocarbon propellants, have minimal local adverse effects. Intranasal application of therapy can induce sneezing in the hyper-reactive nose, and transient local irritation has been described with certain formulations. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids is associated with minor nose bleeding in a small proportion of recipients. This effect has been attributed to the vasoconstrictor activity of the corticosteroid molecules, and is considered to account for the very rare occurrence of nasal septal perforation. Nasal biopsy studies do not show any detrimental structural effects within the nasal mucosa with long-term administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Much attention has focused on the systemic safety of intranasal application. When administered at standard recommended therapeutic dosage, the intranasal antihistamines do not cause significant sedation or impairment of psychomotor function, effects that would be evident when these agents are administered orally at a therapeutically relevant dosage. The systemic bioavailability of intranasal corticosteroids varies from <1% to up to 40-50% and influences the risk of systemic adverse effects. Because the dose delivered topically is small, this is not a major consideration, and extensive studies have not identified significant effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis with continued treatment. A small effect on growth has been reported in one study in children receiving a standard dosage over 1 year, however. This has not been found in prospective studies with the intranasal corticosteroids that have low systemic bioavailability and therefore the judicious choice of intranasal formulation, particularly if there is concurrent corticosteroid inhalation for asthma, is prudent. There is no evidence that such considerations are relevant to shorter-term use, such as in intermittent or seasonal disease. Intranasal therapy, which represents a major mode of drug delivery in allergic rhinitis, thus has a very favourable benefit/risk ratio and is the preferred route of administration for corticosteroids in the treatment of this disease, as well as an important option for antihistaminic therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required.

Histamine skin test reactivity following single and multiple doses of azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether azelastine nasal spray suppresses the dermal response to epicutaneous histamine in allergic patients and the duration of suppression after azelastine use is discontinued.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were entered into this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Patients received either azelastine nasal spray (2 sprays per nostril twice daily) or placebo nasal spray for 14 days. Skin tests were performed 5 hours after the first dose of study drugs to determine the effect of a single dose of azelastine nasal spray on the wheal-and-flare response to histamine. At the end of the 14-day treatment period, skin tests were performed 5 hours after the last dose of study drugs and at 24-hour intervals thereafter, until each patient's wheal-and-flare response to histamine (1.0 and 5.0 mg/mL) returned to within 20% of baseline values.

RESULTS

A single dose of azelastine nasal spray did not significantly alter the wheal-and-flare response to histamine. The wheal response was within 20% of the baseline value in 82% and 88% (1.0 and 5.0 mg/mL of histamine, respectively) of the patients 5 hours after discontinuing 14 days of treatment with azelastine nasal spray. Wheal responses were within 20% of baseline values 48 hours after treatment was discontinued, whereas flare responses returned to within 20% of baseline within 48 hours in 92% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine nasal spray should be discontinued for at least 48 hours before beginning allergy skin test procedures.

Effects of intranasal azelastine on the response to nasal allergen challenge

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Azelastine, a second-generation H1-receptor antagonist, is available for topical administration. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of topical intranasal azelastine on the early-phase and the late-phase allergic responses and on nasal hyper-responsiveness to methacholine.

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study in 20 subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis, out of their allergy season.

METHODS

Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or two puffs of azelastine twice a day (548 microg/d) for 2 weeks followed by nasal challenge with allergen. Twenty-four hours later, while still receiving treatment, subjects underwent a nasal lavage and a nasal challenge with methacholine. End points included symptom scores, levels of mediators and number of eosinophils in nasal lavages, and the weight of secretions after methacholine challenge.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, treatment with intranasal azelastine resulted in significant reductions in allergen-induced sneezing, rhinorrhea, itching, nasal congestion, and levels of albumin during the early-phase response (P <.05). Azelastine had no effect on levels of histamine or tryptase during the early-phase response. There was a significant eosinophil influx 24 hours after challenge, which was not inhibited by azelastine. Treatment with azelastine had no effect on the levels of albumin, interleukin-4, interleukin-5, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and eosinophil cationic protein during the late-phase response. However, azelastine did show a significant inhibitory effect on the methacholine response 24 hours after nasal allergen challenge (P <.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of intranasal azelastine are similar to those of oral second-generation antihistamines.

Safety of antihistamines in children

The histamine H1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) are an important class of medications used for the relief of common symptoms associated with hyperhistaminic conditions occurring in children and adults. This group of drugs may be subdivided into 3 classes, or generations, based upon their propensity to induce sedation and cardiotoxicity. The first generation (classical) antihistamines are highly effective in treating hyperhistaminic conditions. However, they frequently induce sedation and may adversely affect a child's learning ability. First generation antihistamine-induced sedation has been described to occur in more than 50% of patients receiving therapeutic dosages. Serious adverse events are unusual following overdoses of first generation antihistamines although life-threatening adverse events have been described. When the so-called 'second generation' antihistamines terfenadine and astemizole were introduced they were widely embraced and quickly used by clinicians of all specialities, including paediatricians, as nonsedating alternatives to the first generation compounds. These new agents were found to be equally or more effective than first generation antihistamines in relieving symptoms associated with hyperhistaminic conditions without the soporific effects of the first generation agents. Unfortunately, after approximately 10 years of widespread clinical use, disturbing reports of potentially life-threatening dysrhythmias, specifically torsades de pointes, were described. Both terfenadine and astemizole have been shown in vitro to inhibit several ion channels, and in particular the delayed outward rectifier potassium channel in the myocardium, predisposing the heart to dysrhythmias. The potential life-threatening cardiotoxicities of the second generation antihistamines led to the search for noncardiotoxic and nonsedating agents. Loratadine, fexofenadine, mizolastine, ebastine, azelastine and cetirizine are the first of the new third generation antihistamines. These drugs have been shown to be efficacious with few adverse events including no clinically relevant cytochrome P450 mediated metabolic-based drug-drug interactions or QT interval prolongation/cardiac dysrhythmias. Appropriate treatment of an antihistamine overdose depends upon which class of compound has been ingested. There is no specific antidote for antihistamine overdose and treatment is supportive particularly for ingestions of first generation compounds. Ingestion of excessive doses of terfenadine or astemizole requires immediate medical attention. Children who accidentally ingest excessive doses of a third generation compound may usually be adequately managed at home. However, patients ingesting large amounts (approximately >3 to 4 times the normal therapeutic daily dose) should receive medical attention. These patients should be monitored for 2 to 3 hours after the ingestion and patients ingesting cetirizine should be advised about the potential for sedation. The availability of newer generation antihistamine compounds has clearly added to the clinical effectiveness and patient tolerance of a widely prescribed class of drugs. These advances have also been accompanied by improved safety profiles, particularly in the case of third generation antihistamine overdose.

Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of vasomotor (perennial nonallergic) rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Azelastine hydrochloride is an antihistamine with anti-inflammatory properties that is available in the United States in a nasal spray formulation for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Vasomotor (perennial nonallergic) rhinitis (VMR) is a noninfectious, chronic rhinitis usually not associated with inflammatory cell infiltration.

OBJECTIVE

Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials were conducted to determine whether patients with symptoms of VMR (rhinorrhea, sneezing, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion) could be effectively treated with azelastine nasal spray.

METHODS

All of the patients who participated in the trials had a diagnosis of VMR, symptoms for at least 1 year, negative skin tests for a mixed panel of seasonal and perennial allergens, and a nasal cytology examination negative for eosinophils. After a 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, patients who met the symptom severity qualification criteria were randomized to receive either azelastine nasal spray (two sprays per nostril twice daily, 1.1 mg/day) or placebo nasal spray for 21 days. Patients recorded the severity of their VMR symptoms on diary cards each morning and evening of the trial using a four-point symptom rating scale (0 = none to 3 = severe). The primary efficacy variable was the overall reduction from baseline in the total vasomotor rhinitis symptom score (TVRSS) over the 21-day, double-blind treatment period.

RESULTS

In both studies, azelastine nasal spray significantly (study 1, P = .002; study 2, P = .005) reduced the TVRSS from baseline when compared with placebo. Significant improvement was observed within the first week and improvement in all symptoms favored treatment with azelastine nasal spray. No serious or unexpected adverse events were reported in either study. Bitter taste (19% vs 2%) was the only adverse experience that occurred with a statistically significantly greater incidence in the azelastine group than in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first demonstration of the efficacy of an antihistamine in the therapy of VMR in two double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Effect of topical nasal azelastine on the symptoms of rhinitis, sleep, and daytime somnolence in perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggested that daytime somnolence in patients with allergic rhinitis was secondary to disrupted sleep caused by nasal congestion. Medications, which decreased congestion, would be expected to improve sleep and daytime somnolence. Previously, we demonstrated that nasal steroids improved all three symptoms. The effect of topical nasal antihistamines on these symptoms has yet to be studied.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine whether topical nasal azelastine was effective at decreasing congestion, daytime somnolence, and improving sleep.

METHODS

We recruited 24 subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis and randomized them in a double-blinded, crossover fashion, to receive placebo or azelastine two sprays BID, using Balaam's design. Questionnaires, daily diary, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale were used as tools. The last 2 weeks of each 4-week treatment period were summarized, scored, and compared by PROC MIXED in SAS.

RESULTS

The analysis of the Rhinitis Severity Score showed significant improvement only of rhinorrhea in the azelastine group (P = .03). The symptom severity of nasal congestion and daytime somnolence was not significantly different between placebo and azelastine. Subjects considered azelastine effective at improving their sleep (P = .04), but daytime somnolence (P = .06) and congestion (P = .09) were not statistically improved.

CONCLUSION

Azelastine is effective in reducing rhinorrhea and improving sleep quality. We were unable to demonstrate that azelastine can significantly reduce the severity of congestion or daytime somnolence.

Double-blind trials of azelastine nasal spray monotherapy versus combination therapy with loratadine tablets and beclomethasone nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Rhinitis Study Groups

BACKGROUND

Azelastine hydrochloride is an H1-receptor antagonist with antiinflammatory properties that is available in the US as Astelin Nasal Spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. The symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis can initially be treated with monotherapy using either an antihistamine or an intranasal corticosteroid. Patients whose symptoms do not respond adequately are often prescribed a combination of both an antihistamine and an intranasal corticosteroid.

OBJECTIVE

Three multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies were conducted to determine whether patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis who had responded inadequately to monotherapy with either an oral antihistamine or an intranasal corticosteroid, and who were candidates for combination therapy with both an oral antihistamine and an intranasal corticosteroid, could be effectively treated with azelastine nasal spray monotherapy.

METHODS

Following a 1- to 2-week washout period, patients were randomized to 7 days of double-blind treatment with either azelastine nasal spray (2 sprays per nostril bid, 1.1 mg/day) monotherapy or combination therapy with oral loratadine (Claritin, one 10-mg tablet/day) plus intranasal beclomethasone dipropionate monohydrate (Beconase AQ, 2 sprays per nostril bid, 336 microg/day). Efficacy was determined at the end of the study by both a physician assessment of the need for additional anti-rhinitis medication and a patient global evaluation of therapeutic effectiveness. The three studies were conducted at 71 investigational sites during the 1998 spring allergy season. Three separate studies were conducted to verify the reproducibility of the new study design.

RESULTS

In all three studies a total of 1,070 patients were randomized to double-blind treatment. There were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of patients treated with azelastine nasal spray versus patients treated with a combination of loratadine tablets and beclomethasone nasal spray who did not require additional anti-rhinitis medication (32% to 45% and 39% to 46%, respectively). The patient global evaluation indicated that 77% to 84% of the patients treated with azelastine nasal spray had symptomatic improvement and 85% to 90% of the patients treated with loratadine tablets and beclomethasone nasal spray had symptomatic improvement. The most commonly reported adverse experience with azelastine nasal spray was a transient aftertaste (8%), while the most commonly reported adverse experience with loratadine tablets and beclomethasone nasal spray in combination was headache (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the percentage of patients not requiring additional antirhinitis medication and the patient assessment of efficacy, azelastine nasal spray monotherapy was as effective as the combination of oral loratadine plus intranasal beclomethasone in treating moderate-to-severe symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Pros and cons of the use of antihistamines in managing allergic rhinitis

Histamine H1 -receptor antagonists are generally considered first-line therapy for the management of allergic rhinitis. Other than histamine antagonism, several of the second-generation antihistamines have also shown inhibitory effects on chemical mediators of inflammation such as leukotrienes, prostaglandins, and kinins. This article reviews the pharmacology, clinical use, and side effect profiles of the commonly used H1 -receptor antagonists.

Management of allergic rhinitis with a combination antihistamine/anti-inflammatory agent

Azelastine nasal spray is a topical antihistamine treatment for the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Besides histamine antagonism, azelastine affects other chemical mediators of the inflammatory response including leukotrienes and kinins. This article reviews and discusses the antihistaminic and anti-inflammatory properties of azelastine and the results of pharmacokinetic studies and controlled clinical trials.

Diagnosis and management of rhinitis: complete guidelines of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology

This document contains complete guidelines for diagnosis and management of rhinitis developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the Joint Council on Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The guidelines are comprehensive and begin with statements on clinical characteristics and diagnosis of different forms of rhinitis (allergic, non-allergic, occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis [pregnancy and hypothyroidism], drug-induced rhinitis, rhinitis from food ingestion), and other conditions that may be confused with rhinitis. Recommendations on patient evaluation discuss appropriate use of history, physical examination, and diagnostic testing, as well as unproven or inappropriate techniques that should not be used. Parameters on management include use of environmental control measures, pharmacologic therapy including recently introduced therapies and allergen immunotherapy. Because of the risks to patients and society from sedation and performance impairment caused by first generation antihistamines, second generation antihistamines that reduce or eliminate these side effects should usually be considered before first generation antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The document emphasizes the importance of rhinitis management for comorbid conditions (asthma, sinusitis, otitis media). Guidelines are also presented on special considerations in patients subsets (children, the elderly, pregnancy, athletes and patients with rhinitis medicamentosa); and when consultation with an allergist-immunologist should be considered.

Intranasal azelastine. A review of its efficacy in the management of allergic rhinitis

Azelastine, a phthalazinone compound, is a second generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist which has shown clinical efficacy in relieving the symptoms of allergic rhinitis when administered as either an oral or intranasal formulation. It is thought to improve both the early and late phase symptoms of rhinitis through a combination of antihistaminic, antiallergic and anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Symptom improvements are evident as early as 30 minutes, after intranasal administration of azelastine [2 puffs per nostril (0.56mg)] and are apparent for up to 12 hours in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The effect on nasal blockage is variable: in some studies objective and/or subjective assessment showed a reduction in blockage, whereas in other studies there was no improvement. Intranasal azelastine 1 puff per nostril twice daily is generally as effective as standard doses of other antihistamine agents including intranasal levocabastine and oral cetirizine, ebastine, loratadine and terfenadine at reducing the overall symptoms of rhinitis. The relative efficacies of azelastine and intranasal corticosteroids (beclomethasone and budesonide) remain unclear. However, overall, the corticosteroids tended to improve rhinitis symptoms to a greater extent than the antihistamine. Azelastine was well tolerated in clinical trials and postmarketing surveys. The most frequently reported adverse events were bitter taste, application site irritation and rhinitis. The incidence of sedation did not differ significantly between azelastine and placebo recipients and preliminary report showed cardiovascular parameters were not significantly altered in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

CONCLUSION

Twice-daily intranasal azelastine offers an effective and well tolerated alternative to other antihistamine agents currently recommended for the symptomatic relief of mild to severe SAR and PAR in adults and children (aged > or = 12 years in the US; aged > or = 6 years in some European countries including the UK). The rapid onset, confined topical activity and reduced sedation demonstrated by the intranasal formulation of azelastine may offer an advantage over other antihistamine agents, although this has yet to be confirmed.

Azelastine nasal spray as adjunctive therapy to azelastine tablets in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Azelastine rhinitis medications (nasal spray and tablets) have been shown to relieve the symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Nevertheless, many rhinitic subjects suffer from acute exacerbations of symptoms that sometimes require additional treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray as adjunctive therapy to azelastine tablets in the management of symptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis in subjects who remain symptomatic despite the oral medication.

METHODS

A 2-day, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Two hundred thirty-three subjects with symptomatic allergic rhinitis received azelastine tablets (0.5 mg bid) for a minimum of seven days prior to receiving either azelastine nasal spray (2 sprays per nostril bid) or placebo nasal spray as adjunctive therapy. Efficacy was determined by improvement in rhinitis symptoms that were grouped according to total and major symptom complex severity scores.

RESULTS

Mean percent improvements in the total symptom complex severity scores for azelastine were statistically significant (P < or = .05) or showed a trend toward statistical significance (.05 < or = P < .10) versus placebo from the second through the first ten hours after the initial dose and for each of the last five hours of the second day, demonstrating a rapid onset of action and sustained efficacy over the 2-day study period. Azelastine was well tolerated, and no subject discontinued therapy with azelastine due to an adverse experience.

CONCLUSION

Azelastine nasal spray can be effectively administered as adjunctive therapy, in an outdoor environment in which subjects are exposed to pollen and other aeroallergens.