Comparison of intranasal azelastine to intranasal fluticasone propionate for symptom control in moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis

被引:26
作者
Carr, Warner W. [1 ]
Ratner, Paul [2 ]
Munzel, Ullrich [3 ]
Murray, Ruth [4 ]
Price, David [5 ]
Canonica, G. Walter [6 ]
Mullol, Joaquirn [7 ]
Virchow, J. Christian [8 ]
Lieberman, Phil [9 ]
Meltzer, Eli [10 ]
Bachert, Claus [11 ]
机构
[1] Allergy & Asthma Associates So Calif, Mission Viejo, CA USA
[2] Sylvana Res, San Antonio, TX USA
[3] MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co, KG, Bad Homburg, Germany
[4] MedScript, Dundalk, Ireland
[5] Univ Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland
[6] Univ Genoa, Allergy & Resp Dis Clin, Genoa, Italy
[7] Hosp Clin Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
[8] Univ Hosp, Rostock, Germany
[9] Univ Tennessee, Coll Med, Memphis, TN USA
[10] Allergy & Asthma Med Grp & Res Ctr, San Diego, CA USA
[11] Ghent Univ Hosp, Ghent, Belgium
关键词
NASAL SPRAY; CLINICAL-EFFICACY; DOUBLE-BLIND; HYDROCHLORIDE; PHARMACOLOGY; MP29-02; THERAPY;
D O I
10.2500/aap.2012.33.3626
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Intranasal corticosteroids are considered the most effective therapy for moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and recommended first line in guidelines. It is uncertain whether intranasal antihistamines have comparable efficacy. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of azelastine (AZE; 137 mu g/spray) and fluticasone propionate (FP; 50 mg/spray), both given as 1 spray/nostril bid (i.e., approved dosing regimen in the United States), in SAR via a post hoc analysis of data from a previously published direct-comparison study. Six hundred ten moderate-to-severe SAR patients (>= 12 years old) were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS (morning and evening), over 14 days. Reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS) was a key secondary variable. Reflective total of seven symptom scores (rT7SS [nasal plus ocular symptoms]) and time to >= 50% reduction from baseline in these key parameters were also analyzed. AZE and FP reduced rTNSS from baseline by a similar degree (-3.25 versus -3.84; p = 0.2014). Patients experienced comparable improvement in rTOSS (-2.62 versus -2.17; p = 0.2371) and rT7SS (-5.83 versus -6.05; p = 0.7820). FP was superior to AZE in alleviating rhinorrhea (-1.15 versus -0.87; p = 0.0433), but AZE showed comparable efficacy for all other nasal and ocular symptoms. There was no clinically or statistically significant difference between AZE (-1.17) and FP (-1.43) for reduction in the overall rhinitis quality of life questionnaire score (although FP, but not AZE, significantly differed from placebo). A similar proportion of patients in the AZE and FP groups achieved a 50% reduction in rTNSS. However, more AZE patients (53.0%) exhibited a 50% reduction in rTOSS by day 14 versus FP (39.6%), and <= 3 days faster (p = 0.028). Intranasal AZE (137 micrograms/spray) and intranasal FP (50 micrograms/spray), both 1 spray/nostril b.i.d., had comparable efficacy in symptom control in moderate-to-severe SAR. (Allergy Asthma Proc 33:450-458, 2012; doi: 10.2500/aap.2012.33.3626)
引用
收藏
页码:450 / 458
页数:9
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], GUID IND ALL RHIN CL
  • [2] Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in patients with an unsatisfactory response to loratadine
    Berger, WE
    White, MV
    [J]. ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY, 2003, 91 (02) : 205 - 211
  • [3] Azelastine hydrochloride: a review of pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and tolerability
    Bernstein, Jonathan A.
    [J]. CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2007, 23 (10) : 2441 - 2452
  • [4] Allergic and mixed rhinitis: Epidemiology and natural history
    Bernstein, Jonathan A.
    [J]. ALLERGY AND ASTHMA PROCEEDINGS, 2010, 31 (05) : 365 - 369
  • [5] Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 Revision
    Brozek, Jan L.
    Bousquet, Jean
    Baena-Cagnani, Carlos E.
    Bonini, Sergio
    Canonica, G. Walter
    Casale, Thomas B.
    van Wijk, Roy Gerth
    Ohta, Ken
    Zuberbier, Torsten
    Schuenemann, Holger J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2010, 126 (03) : 466 - 476
  • [6] Carr W, 2012, EUR AC ALL CLIN IMM
  • [7] A novel intranasal therapy of azelastine with fluticasone for the treatment of allergic rhinitis
    Carr, Warner
    Bernstein, Jonathan
    Lieberman, Phil
    Meltzer, Eli
    Bachert, Claus
    Price, David
    Munzel, Ullrich
    Bousquet, Jean
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2012, 129 (05) : 1282 - U155
  • [8] Topical azelastine reduces eosinophil activation and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression on nasal epithelial cells: An antiallergic activity
    Ciprandi, G
    Pronzato, C
    Passalacqua, G
    Ricca, V
    Bagnasco, M
    Grogen, J
    Mela, GS
    Canonica, GW
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 1996, 98 (06) : 1088 - 1096
  • [9] Bioavailability and disposition of azelastine and fluticasone propionate when delivered by MP29-02, a novel aqueous nasal spray
    Derendorf, Hartmut
    Munzel, Ullrich
    Petzold, Ursula
    Maus, Joachim
    Mascher, Hermann
    Hermann, Robert
    Bousquet, Jean
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2012, 74 (01) : 125 - 133
  • [10] EMA guideline, 2004, CHMPEWP245502 EMA GU