Meta‐Analysis of Azelastine Nasal Spray for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Abstract

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.

New Developments in the Diagnosis and Therapy of Allergic Rhinitis

“…Ancak ARIA 2008 kılavuzunda allerjik kişilerin ev tozu akarı ve hayvan epitelinden kaçınmasının AR'den korunmasında yeterli olmadığı bildirilmektedir. Polen allerjisi olanlar da pencerelerin özellikle sabah vakitlerinde kapalı tutulması ve polen mevsiminde dışarıda geçirilen zamanın azaltılması önerilebilir (1,10,24 (35). ARIA güncellemesinde PAR tedavisinde intranazal antihistaminiklerin kullanılmaması tavsiye edilmektedir (1,10,36).…”

Differences in recommendations between the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma Update 2010 and US Rhinitis Practice Parameters

“…[2][3][4][5][6] Azelastine is also approved for PAR on the basis of well designed, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled studies. [2][3][4][5][6] There are a number of advantages to intranasal administration. NAHs directly target the inflamed nasal mucosa, and intranasal administration is associated with faster onset of action and potentially lower incidences of systemic side effects.…”

“…2 Meta-analyses have shown NAH to yield lower number needed to treat values than OAH, with efficacy results approaching those of intranasal steroids (INSs). 6,7 A comprehensive evidence-based review of >40 years of data from all medication classes approved to treat AR in the United States identified 38 SAR studies (n 5 11,980 adults, 946 children) that met strict inclusion criteria to ensure appropriate matching. When OAH and NAH were used at their indicated US doses, the mean reductions in Total Nasal Symptoms Scores (TNSS) over 2 weeks were comparable.…”

“…[2][3][4]6 Whereas little or no symptom improvement is gained adding OAH to INS, in a study comparing azelastine nasal spray, fluticasone nasal spray, and the combination in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR, the reduction in nasal congestion was 31.2% for the combination versus 19.2% and 21.1% for the NAH and INS alone (P < _ .05) (see reference E5). INS and NAH reduced ocular symptoms to similar degrees, and the combination to a greater degree than either alone (see references E3-E8).…”

An approach to the patient with a post-nasal drip and rhinosinusitis

“…Azelastine nasal spray is an antihistamine and mast cell stabiliser and has been proven to be more effective than a placebo for patients with rhinorrhoea and/or a PND. 6 In a few patients who fail medical therapy and have severe nasal blockage secondary to inferior turbinate hypertrophy, surgery is an option. The inferior turbinates play a very important role in humidification, filtration, heating and respiration, and turbinate surgery can be harmful and cause atrophic rhinitis.…”