ADVERTISEMENT

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

Allergy

Allergy

Volume 49 Issue 3, Pages 152 - 158

Published Online: 28 Apr 2007

Journal compilation © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S



< Previous Abstract  |  Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: PDF (Size: 6409K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

Comparative efficacy of azelastine nasal spray and terfenadine in seasonal and perennial rhinitis
H. Gastpar 1 , D. Nolte 1 , R. Aurich 1 , P. Brendt 1 , H. Enzmann 1 , G. Giesemann 1 , G. Kunkel 1 , U. Petzold 1 , W. Renz 1 , M. Schata 1 , M. I. Schiffmann 1
  1 Universitäts-Hals-Nasen-Ohrenklinik München, Munich, Germany
Correspondence to  Prof. Dr. H. Gastpar, Universitäts-Hals-Nasen-Ohrenklinik München, Poliklinik Innenstadt, Pettenkoferstr. 8a, 8000 München 2, Germany
Copyright Munksgaard 1994
KEYWORDS
perennial rhinitis • seasonal rhinitis • topical antiallergic/antihistaminic treatment

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.


Accepted for publication 3 May 1993

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1398-9995.1994.tb00818.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


Sign Up Now
Sign Up Now
Sign Up Now

Sign Up Now

Be the first to know about new research in your field

Sign up for FREE e-alerts from Wiley-Blackwell journals!

Sign Up Now