Azelastine nasal spray in treating perennial allergic rhinitis: a randomly double-blind trial
Shen Bei-bei
Abstract
Shen Bei-bei
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray in treating perennial allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with moderate to severe perennial allergic rhinitis were qualified for the random, double-blind, comparative research. They were divided into two groups: azelastine group (nineteen patients) was treated with azelastine nasal spray, one puff per nostril twice daily for 4 wk (one puff=140 μg azelastine), and levocabastine group (nineteen patients) was treated with levocabastine nasal spray 2 puff per nostril twice daily as the control. At the end of 2 wk and 4 wk treatment, the comprehensine evaluation of effect was made according to the subjective symptom score and objective examination. RESULTS: The total effect rate was 95 %, and 84 %, in azelastine group and in the levocabastine group, respectively (P 0.05). The differences of symptom score (pre-treatment score-post-treatment score) of sneezing, discharge, itching of nose and nasal blockage between the two groups decieased and those were 1.4±0.8 and 1.3±1.0, 1.0±0.7 and 0.8±0.9, 1.3±0.6 and 1.4±0.7, 0.7±0.7 and 0.7±0.8, 0.8±0.8 and 0.5±0.7, respectively (P0.05). No remarkable adverse reaction was observed. CONCLUSION: Azelastine nasal spray has similar therapeutic efficacy and tolerability to levocabastine nasal spray in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
AIM: To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray in treating perennial allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with moderate to severe perennial allergic rhinitis were qualified for the random, double-blind, comparative research. They were divided into two groups: azelastine group (nineteen patients) was treated with azelastine nasal spray, one puff per nostril twice daily for 4 wk (one puff=140 μg azelastine), and levocabastine group (nineteen patients) was treated with levocabastine nasal spray 2 puff per nostril twice daily as the control. At the end of 2 wk and 4 wk treatment, the comprehensine evaluation of effect was made according to the subjective symptom score and objective examination. RESULTS: The total effect rate was 95 %, and 84 %, in azelastine group and in the levocabastine group, respectively (P 0.05). The differences of symptom score (pre-treatment score-post-treatment score) of sneezing, discharge, itching of nose and nasal blockage between the two groups decieased and those were 1.4±0.8 and 1.3±1.0, 1.0±0.7 and 0.8±0.9, 1.3±0.6 and 1.4±0.7, 0.7±0.7 and 0.7±0.8, 0.8±0.8 and 0.5±0.7, respectively (P0.05). No remarkable adverse reaction was observed. CONCLUSION: Azelastine nasal spray has similar therapeutic efficacy and tolerability to levocabastine nasal spray in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.
Key concepts: Azelastine, Nostril, Nasal spray, Medicine, Tolerability, Anesthesia, Nose, Adverse effect