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 | ||
![]() AllergyVolume 49 Issue 3, Pages 152 - 158 Published Online: 28 Apr 2007 Journal compilation © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S Published with the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)
Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 6409K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking Comparative efficacy of azelastine nasal spray and terfenadine in seasonal and perennial rhinitis Copyright Munksgaard 1994 KEYWORDS perennial rhinitis • seasonal rhinitis • topical antiallergic/antihistaminic treatment ABSTRACTThe 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 |