The effectiveness of the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and mometasone furoate for the intranasal application in the patients presenting with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Abstract

The objective of the present work was to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and mometasone furoate for the intranasal application to treat the patients presenting with seasonal allergic rhinitis. A total of 60 subjects suffering from seasonal allergic rhinitis were available for the observation. All the patients were allocated to three groups comprised of 20 individuals each. The patients of the first group received the fixed combination of azelastine hydrochloride and mometasone furoate for the intranasal application, those in the second group were given mometasone furoate administered intranasally together with an oral antihistamine preparation of the third generation, and the patients of the third group were treated with intranasal mometasone furoate alone. The effectiveness of the treatment was evaluated on days 7 and 14 after its initiation. It was found that the treatment with the use of the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and mometasone furoate resulted in a more pronounced alleviation of rhinological symptoms and improvement of the quality of life at the early stages of therapy in comparison with mometasone furoate monotherapy. It is concluded that the patients with moderate and severe seasonal allergic rhinitis can be recommended to use the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and mometasone furoate as качестве the initial treatment.

KAAACI Allergic Rhinitis Guidelines: Part 1. Update in Pharmacotherapy

“…However, Du et al 33 analyzed the data from 5 studies and demonstrated that OAH/INCS combination therapy was more effective than INCS monotherapy for only rhinorrhea (95% CI, −0.07 to 0; I 2 = 0%; P for overall effect < 0.05), but not nasal congestion, sneezing, or itching. Of the 4 studies that used the RQLQ, 15 26 28 30 compared to INCS monotherapy, OAH/INCS combination therapy induced significant improvement in total mean scores of RQLQ (SMD, −0.26; 95% CI, −0.51 to −0.02; P = 0.04; I 2 = 78%); however, the difference did not exceed −0.50, which is the criterion for a clinically significant difference. 34 The change in the TOSS was reported in only one study, and there was no significant difference between combination therapy and monotherapy.…”

“… 12 14 24 Moreover, the RQLQ was described in 4 studies, and INCS/INAH combination therapy induced a more significant improvement over that of INCS monotherapy (MD, −0.24; 95% CI, −0.42 to −0.06; P = 0.009; I 2 = 79%). 11 12 14 15 24 In 3 studies, the TSS slightly decreased with the INCS/INAH combination therapy compared to INCS monotherapy, although this difference was not statistically significant (MD, −0.66; 95% CI, −2.02 to 0.71; P = 0.34; I 2 = 98%). 15 19 22 24 …”

“… 11 12 14 15 24 In 3 studies, the TSS slightly decreased with the INCS/INAH combination therapy compared to INCS monotherapy, although this difference was not statistically significant (MD, −0.66; 95% CI, −2.02 to 0.71; P = 0.34; I 2 = 98%). 15 19 22 24 …”

“…A total of 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified to compare the INCS/INAH combination therapy with INCS monotherapy. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Of these, 10 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis for evaluating the difference in symptom score (total nasal symptom score [TNSS], total ocular symptom score [TOSS], rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaires [RQLQ], and total symptom score [TSS]), and 12 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis for evaluating adverse events (treatment emergent adverse events [TEAEs], dysgeusia, epistaxis, and serious adverse events [SAEs]). 24 …”

“…The full-text screening was performed, and 8 RCTs were finally selected for the meta-analyses. 15 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Among them, 6 studies evaluated differences in symptom scores, and 4 studies described adverse events.…”