Comparison of azelastine nasal spray and oral ebastine in treating seasonal allergic rhinitis

Greens appraisal of validated stability indicating RP-HPLC method and forced degradation study for quantification of Ebastine in wastewater and dosage form

OBJECTIVES

Allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria are common conditions triggered by environmental irritants, stress, and certain foods. The FDA has recently announced that the efficacy and safety of Ebastine (EBS) have been thoroughly evaluated and confirmed. This study considered using various tools to assess their greenness. We used AGREEprep, analytical eco-scale (ESA), and analytical method volume intensity (AMVI) to evaluate the greenness of the validated stability-indicating method and a forced degradation study. This allowed for easy determination and quantitation of EBS in wastewater and dosage form.

METHODS

The method was established on Symmetry RP-C18 (150mm×4.6mm,5μm) using mobile phase, which can be prepared by mixing buffer solution of pH 3 with acetonitrile in a ratio of (37.5: 62.5, v/v) in addition to dissolving 0.72 gm of sodium lauryl sulfate in the final solution. The separation process was executed at a flow rate of 1.5mL/min and 5μL injection volume with UV detection at 254nm. Linearity was conducted for EBS in the 5-50μg/mL range. Different validation parameters were investigated, including accuracy, precision, robustness, and specificity.

RESULTS

The limits of both detection and quantification were 0.84μg/mL and 2.57μg/mL for EBS. The recovery percentages of EBS were found to be 101.01% and 101.02% for wastewater and pharmaceutical formulations, respectively.

CONCLUSION

According to International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines, a forced degradation study of EBS was evaluated, including acid, base hydrolysis, and oxidative hydrolysis using hydrogen peroxide and photolytic and thermal degradation. The highest degradation was achieved by acid hydrolysis. The safety and efficacy of EBS were evaluated via a safety comparative profile study.

Effect of azelastine nasal spray on histamine-and allergen-induced skin wheal response in patients with allergic rhinitis

Effect of azelastine nasal spray on histamine-and allergen-induced skin test response in patients suffering with allergic rhinitis was evaluated. Baseline cutaneous response to histamine and 18 common allergen extracts were recorded by skin prick tests on 10 patients. The patients were then advised to take azelastine nasal spray (1 spray per nostril, twice daily; 0.28 mg/dose). This pediatric dose is reported to be effective also in adults (age > or = 12 years) with improved tolerability as compared with usually recommended adult dose of 2 sprays per nostril twice daily. Skin tests were repeated 2 and 6 hours after single dose, as well as after 6 days of continuous treatment. We did not find any significant difference in skin wheal response with single dose and 6 days' treatment of azelastine nasal spray (p > 0.05). It is concluded that diagnostic allergen skin tests may be performed on patients undergoing azelastine nasal spray treatment (0.28 mg/dose, twice a day) during their symptomatic period.

Histamine and leukotriene receptor antagonism in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: an update

Allergic rhinitis represents a global health burden. The disease can seriously affect quality of life and is associated with multiple co-morbidities. Histamine and leukotrienes are important pro-inflammatory mediators in nasal allergic inflammation. Their actions on target cells are mediated through specific receptors and, consequently, molecules that block the binding of histamine and leukotrienes to their receptors have been important areas of pharmacological research. The published literature of the pathophysiology of histamine and leukotrienes, and the effects of histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists (H(1) antihistamines) and leukotriene antagonists in monotherapy or in combination therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis was reviewed. The presented results are based on the best available evidence. The efficacy of H(1) antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists (montelukast in particular) in allergic rhinitis has been established in numerous randomised placebo-controlled trials. Results from meta-analyses indicate that H(1) antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists are equally effective in improving symptoms of allergic rhinitis and quality of life, but that both drugs are less effective than intranasal corticosteroids. Data on the combination of H(1) antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists in allergic rhinitis are limited. The available evidence shows that a combined mediator inhibition has additional benefits over the use of each agent alone, but is still inferior to intranasal corticosteroids. More well designed studies are needed to fully understand the benefits of a concomitant use of these agents.

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.

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.

Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: superior relief?

Whether first-line pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis should be antihistamines or intranasal corticosteroids has been discussed for several years. First-generation antihistamines are rarely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, mainly because of sedative and anticholinergic adverse effects. On the basis of clinical evidence of efficacy, no second-generation antihistamine seems preferable to another. Similarly, comparisons of topical and oral antihistamines have been unable to demonstrate superior efficacy for one method of administration over the other. Current data documents no striking differences in efficacy and safety parameters between intranasal corticosteroids. When the efficacy of antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are compared in patients with allergic rhinitis, present data favours intranasal corticosteroids. Interestingly, data do not show antihistamines as superior for the treatment of conjunctivitis. Safety data from comparative studies in patients with allergic rhinitis do not indicate differences between antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids. Combining antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis does not provide any additional effect to intranasal corticosteroids alone. On the basis of current data, intranasal corticosteroids seem to offer superior relief in allergic rhinitis than antihistamines.

Activity of ebastine (10 and 20 mg) and cetirizine at 24 hours of a steady state treatment in the skin of healthy volunteers

We have compared the inhibitory effects of ebastine (10 mg), ebastine (20 mg) and cetirizine (10 mg) on histamine-induced wheal and flare skin reactions 24 h following a 6-day-long treatment. This was a double-blind, randomised, crossover, placebo-controlled study involving 24 healthy volunteers (18-65 years) with negative skin prick tests and the absence of specific IgEs to common allergens. Subjects were randomised to receive each of the following treatments once daily for 6 days: ebastine (10 mg), ebastine (20 mg), cetirizine (10 mg) or placebo with a washout period of 5 days. Twenty-four hours after the last dose of each treatment, histamine skin prick tests were performed (0, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 and 200 mg/mL), and wheal and flare responses were measured. All active treatments produced significant inhibition of the wheal responses compared to placebo (P < 0.001). Wheal response inhibition was significantly better with 20 mg of ebastine compared with 10 mg of ebastine and 10 mg of cetirizine. In a comparison to histamine concentrations required to produce a wheal surface area of 10 mm2, 20 mg of ebastine was also significantly better than ebastine 10 mg and cetirizine (P < 0.001), and 10 mg ebastine was significantly better than cetirizine (P < 0.05). Highly significant (P < 0.001) effects on the flare response were observed with each active treatment compared to placebo, with no difference between groups. The frequency of adverse events, primarily somnolence, was similar among the four treatment groups. Our results clearly indicate that ebastine, at either recommended dosage of 10 and 20 mg, and cetirizine produced significant inhibition of the histamine-induced wheal and flare reaction compared to placebo for up to 24 h. A superior efficacy of 20 mg of ebastine is observed compared with 10 mg of ebastine and 10 mg of cetirizine on the skin wheal response 24 h after the last dose of a 6-day-long treatment. This study clearly proves ebastine to be an effective, truly once-daily antihistamine.

Ebastine: an update of its use in allergic disorders

Ebastine is a second-generation antihistamine which undergoes transformation to its active metabolite, carebastine. Its antihistaminic and antiallergic effects have been demonstrated in in vitro and in vivo studies, in addition to data obtained from clinical trials. Patients with allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria experienced significant improvement in their symptoms with ebastine 10 or 20 mg once daily. Some studies in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) have indicated trends towards greater efficacy with the 20 mg than the 10 mg dose, although only 1 study has shown statistically significant benefits. In comparative trials in patients with SAR, ebastine 10 mg was as effective as most other second-generation antihistamines, including astemizole, azelastine, cetirizine, loratadine and terfenadine. Ebastine 20 mg/day was significantly superior to loratadine 10 mg/day in patients with SAR according to effects on secondary efficacy variables in comparative studies; 1 study found significantly greater changes from baseline in mean total symptom score with ebastine 20 mg (-43 vs -36% with loratadine, p = 0.045). In patients with perennial allergic rhinitis, ebastine 10 or 20 mg daily was significantly more effective than loratadine in reducing total symptom scores from baseline 1 comparative study. There have been no reports of serious adverse cardiac effects during ebastine therapy. Increases in corrected QT interval have been observed during clinical trials; however, these have not been considered clinically significant and were generally of similar magnitude to those seen with loratadine. The normal diurnal variation in QTc interval and the problems associated in correcting for changes in heart rate also complicate assessment of this issue. The incidence of adverse events during ebastine treatment is not significantly greater than that observed with placebo or other second-generation antihistamines.

CONCLUSIONS

Ebastine 10 mg daily is a well tolerated and effective treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. At this dosage, it is as effective as the other second-generation antihistamines against which it has been compared. Ebastine 20 mg has similar tolerability to the 10 mg dose, and trends towards greater efficacy with the higher dose have been shown in some studies. Ebastine does not appear to be associated with any significant cardiac adverse events. Ebastine is a useful treatment option for patients with allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Histamine--a major role in allergy?

Since its discovery in 1911, histamine has been recognized as a major mediator in allergic reactions and diseases, and today antihistamines remain important agents in the treatment of these conditions. In addition to its known effects on glands, vessels and sensory nerves, recent data have provided further evidence of histamine's proinflammatory actions, which appear to be mediated mainly by H1 receptors. Thus, findings indicate that histamine is a crucial mediator in both the early and late-phase reactions of an allergic response, playing important roles in cytokine release and in the adhesion process. Histamine has been shown to increase the adhesion of leucocytes to the endothelium and to stimulate production of IL-6 and IL-8 by endothelial cells. It also increases TNF alpha-induced IL-6 production and expression of adhesion molecules. These effects can be inhibited by H1 receptor antagonists. First-generation antihistamines, though moderately effective, showed poor selectivity and caused sedation, due to their penetration of the blood-brain barrier, and other troublesome side-effects. Second-generation antihistamines such as ebastine have increased potency due to greater selectivity for histamine receptors, and improved tolerability due to lack of penetration of the blood brain barrier. Recent studies have shown ebastine 10 mg daily to be effective, safe and well tolerated in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), with a rapid onset of action, symptom relief comparable to that seen with topical azelastine or oral loratadine 10 mg o.d., cetirizine 10 mg o.d. or terfenadine 60 mg b.i.d., and no significant side-effects. Ebastine therefore offers a new option in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: large scale experience in community practice

Two Spanish prospective monitoring studies evaluated efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray containing azelastine hydrochloride for allergic rhinitis. Both studies were conducted by community practitioners over two weeks (Study I) or one month (Study II). The numbers of patients recruited were 3680 (I) and 4002 (II). Of these, 56.1% (I) and 51.7% (II) had been previously treated with oral antihistamines with/without other medications. Patients rated the severity of 10 symptoms of allergic rhinitis as absent, mild, moderate or severe. Azelastine nasal spray was generally administered at a dose of one spray puff (0.14 mg) per nostril twice daily. Follow-up was after 14 days (I) or 31 days (II), when symptoms were rated and patients questioned about treatment. Assessment was by a sum score for all 10 symptoms. A symptom sum score of 16-20 occurred in 21.1% (I) and 13.7% (II) of patients before treatment and only 0.8% (I) and 0.6% (II) after treatment. A symptom sum score of 11-15 occurred in 35.9% (I) and 30.5% (II) of patients before treatment and only 2.6% (I) and 2.8% (II) after treatment. Overall, 92.3% (I) and 90.7% (II) of patients were completely free of adverse events, 7.0% (I) and 8.8% (II) experienced one and 0.7% (I) and 0.6% (II) two adverse events. The number of doctors who rated efficacy as either very good or good was 89.4% (I) and 84.6% (II). General tolerance was rated as good or very good by 97.5% (I) and 97.3% (II), and local tolerance by 93.1% (I) and 91.5% (II) of physicians, respectively. Overall, azelastine nasal spray was highly effective and very well tolerated in normal clinical practice.