1999•Unpublished venueRequires access

Clinical Evaluation of Azelastine Nasal Spray versus Terfenadine in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Chia‐Ming Liu, Ming-Che Hsu

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anitihistamines are primarile used for the therapy of allergic rhinitis. Azelastine tablet is very effective and well tolerated. The newly developed Azelastine nasal spray has the advantage of acting more rapidly and in lower doses because of the local administration in the affected area. METHODS: This study was designed as double-blind, randomized, active controlled with parallel group to compare the therapeutic efficacy and tolerance of intranasal Azelastine with that of Terfenadine tablet in relieving both the nasal and eye symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients. RESULTS: The results showed that after 2 weeks of treatment, 79% of patients in Azelastine group (n=19) and 59% of patients in Terfenadine group (n=23) had improvement in the symptom assessment. The percentage was not statistically different between treatments (p>0.20). Except for the event of bitter taste when significant difference was found in Azelastine group, other adverse experiences were compatible between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of a twice daily dosage of Azelastine nasal spray, 0.14 mg per nostril (0.56mg Azelastine/day), in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The efficacy of Azelastine nasal spray is at least as good as that of Terfenadine, 60 mg tablets b.i.d. The safety outcomes show that Azelastine nasal spray is safe in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. (J Taiwan Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;34:471-478)

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Anitihistamines are primarile used for the therapy of allergic rhinitis. Azelastine tablet is very effective and well tolerated. The newly developed Azelastine nasal spray has the advantage of acting more rapidly and in lower doses because of the local administration in the affected area. METHODS: This study was designed as double-blind, randomized, active controlled with parallel group to compare the therapeutic efficacy and tolerance of intranasal Azelastine with that of Terfenadine tablet in relieving both the nasal and eye symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients. RESULTS: The results showed that after 2 weeks of treatment, 79% of patients in Azelastine group (n=19) and 59% of patients in Terfenadine group (n=23) had improvement in the symptom assessment. The percentage was not statistically different between treatments (p>0.20). Except for the event of bitter taste when significant difference was found in Azelastine group, other adverse experiences were compatible between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of a twice daily dosage of Azelastine nasal spray, 0.14 mg per nostril (0.56mg Azelastine/day), in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The efficacy of Azelastine nasal spray is at least as good as that of Terfenadine, 60 mg tablets b.i.d. The safety outcomes show that Azelastine nasal spray is safe in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. (J Taiwan Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;34:471-478)

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Anitihistamines are primarile used for the therapy of allergic rhinitis. Azelastine tablet is very effective and well tolerated. The newly developed Azelastine nasal spray has the advantage of acting more rapidly and in lower doses because of the local administration in the affected area. METHODS: This study was designed as double-blind, randomized, active controlled with parallel group to compare the therapeutic efficacy and tolerance of intranasal Azelastine with that of Terfenadine tablet in relieving both the nasal and eye symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients. RESULTS: The results showed that after 2 weeks of treatment, 79% of patients in Azelastine group (n=19) and 59% of patients in Terfenadine group (n=23) had improvement in the symptom assessment. The percentage was not statistically different between treatments (p>0.20). Except for the event of bitter taste when significant difference was found in Azelastine group, other adverse experiences were compatible between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of a twice daily dosage of Azelastine nasal spray, 0.14 mg per nostril (0.56mg Azelastine/day), in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The efficacy of Azelastine nasal spray is at least as good as that of Terfenadine, 60 mg tablets b.i.d. The safety outcomes show that Azelastine nasal spray is safe in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. (J Taiwan Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;34:471-478)

Key concepts: Azelastine, Terfenadine, Nostril, Medicine, Nasal spray, Nasal administration, Adverse effect, Anesthesia

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Clinical Evaluation of Azelastine Nasal Spray versus Terfenadine in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis — Research Paper | ScholarLens