1 The effect of 4.4 mg azelastine administered orally on airway responsiveness, skin prick testing, daily peak expiratory flow rates and symptoms of asthma was compared with placebo in a 7 week double-blind, parallel group study of 24 patients with extrinsic asthma. The study was in two parts: a 2 week assessment period, during which all patients received placebo tablets but recorded daily peak flow rates (PEFRs) and symptoms, preceding the 7 week double-blind comparison. 2 Azelastine, 4.4 mg, significantly decreased airway responsiveness to histamine compared with placebo both after a single dose (P < 0.001), and following 7 weeks continuous treatment (P < 0.02). Airway responsiveness to methacholine was not altered by administration of azelastine compared with placebo. 3 Skin prick test weal diameters to both allergen and histamine were significantly reduced after both a single dose and following 7 weeks continuous therapy treatment with azelastine. 4 There was a significant improvement in both the mean of the morning and the evening peak flow rates recorded during the last week compared with the first week of the study in the group receiving 4.4 mg of azelastine twice daily compared with placebo. Scores for wheeze were significantly reduced during the final 3 weeks of the study in patients receiving azelastine compared both with those receiving placebo and with the first week of the study (P < 0.05, P < 0.01). Consumption of inhaled bronchodilators fell significantly during the study in the group receiving azelastine therapy (P < 0.05); no such fall occurred in the placebo treated patients. 5 A bitter metallic taste was reported by 58% of patients who received azelastine therapy.

No abstract

The efficacy and tolerability of intranasal azelastine (0.14 mg/nostril twice daily) and oral terfenadine (60 mg twice daily) were compared under double-blind conditions in two 6-week, multicenter, parallel-group studies, including 167 patients suffering from seasonal and 52 patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis. In both studies, patients were symptomatic on entry and showed significant improvement on both treatments within the first 8 d of therapy, showing little further improvement with continued treatment. Symptoms most pronounced on entry--nasal itching, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal obstruction--responded best to treatment (response rates 80-90%). Objective signs such as mucosal swelling and conjunctivitis improved in a manner parallel to symptoms. In perennial rhinitis, azelastine showed a trend to a superior relief of rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction, whereas terfenadine showed a trend toward better control of sneezing and nasal itchiness. No clinically relevant or statistically significant differences between treatments could be identified. The incidence of adverse effects of possible causal relationship to therapy was low. The most frequent effects in azelastine-treated patients were related to application site disorders, e.g., nasal irritation. Results indicate that with the dose used azelastine nasal spray is an effective treatment for both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis.

No abstract

No abstract