盐酸氮卓斯汀与丙酸氟替卡松喷鼻剂治疗变应性鼻炎临床对比观察

目的观察并比较盐酸氮卓斯汀与丙酸氟替卡松喷鼻剂在治疗变应性鼻炎中的效果。方法 146例变应性鼻炎患者,随机分为观察组和对照组,观察组应用盐酸氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂,对照组应用丙酸氟替卡松喷鼻剂(辅舒良),比较两组疗效及不良反应。结果两组治疗效果比较差异无统计学意义。但观察组起效快、不良反应明显少于对照组。结论对于常年性变应性鼻炎的治疗,应首选盐酸氮卓斯汀,该药起效快、安全有效,值得临床推广应用。     

盐酸氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂联合辛芩颗粒治疗变应性鼻炎效果观察

目的:观察盐酸氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂联合辛芩颗粒治疗变应性鼻炎的临床效果.方法:将56例变应性鼻炎患者随机分为观察组与对照组,对照组采用盐酸氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂治疗,观察组给予盐酸氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂联合辛芩颗粒治疗,两组疗程均为2周,比较两组临床疗效、药物不良反应以及治疗后4~8周复发情况.结果:观察组总有效率92.8%,对照组为71.5%,组间比较差异显著(P<0.01);不良反应发生情况组间比较无显著差异(P>0.05);治疗后4~8周观察组复发率10.7%,对照组为25.0%,组间比较差异显著(P<0.05).结论:盐酸氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂联合辛芩颗粒治疗变应性鼻炎可提高临床疗效,减少复发,且不增加不良反应.     

盐酸氮卓斯汀与曲安奈德治疗变应性鼻炎的临床观察

目的:比较盐酸氮卓斯汀与曲安奈德治疗变应性鼻炎的临床疗效和安全性。方法:96例变应性鼻炎患者按随机数字表法分为A组(55例)和B组(41例)。A组患者给予盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷雾剂,每鼻孔1喷,bid,于晨起和睡前给药;B组患者给予曲安奈德鼻喷雾剂,每鼻孔2喷,qd,于晨起给药。两组患者疗程均为4周。观察两组患者的临床疗效、治疗前后的症状与体征评分及不良反应发生情况。结果:两组患者总有效率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗前两组患者症状与体征评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后两组患者症状与体征评分均显著低于同组治疗前,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),但两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A组患者不良反应发生率为5.5%,B组患者为19.5%,A组显著低于B组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:盐酸氮卓斯汀与曲安奈德治疗变应性鼻炎均具有显著疗效,但盐酸氮卓斯汀安全性更好。     

氮斯汀喷鼻剂治疗常年性变应性鼻炎随机双盲试验

目的 :探讨氮斯汀喷鼻剂治疗常年性变应性鼻炎的疗效及安全性。方法 :38例中、重度常年性变应性鼻炎病人行随机、双盲、对照研究。分氮斯汀组 19例 ,给予氮斯汀液体喷鼻剂喷鼻 ,每日 2次 ,每次每侧鼻孔 1揿 (每揿 140 μg氮斯汀 ) ,治疗 4wk。左卡巴斯汀组 19例 ,用左卡巴斯汀喷鼻剂喷鼻 ,每日 2次 ,每次 2揿 ,作为对照。治疗 2wk末及 4wk末时 ,根据主观评分及客观检查结果 ,综合评定疗效。结果 :氮斯汀喷鼻剂组总有效率为 95 % ,左卡巴斯汀喷鼻剂组为 84 % (P >0 .0 5 )。 2组治疗前后喷嚏、流涕、鼻痒、鼻塞及眼部症状积分下降分别为 1.4± 0 .8和 1.3± 1.0 ,1.0±0 .7和 0 .8± 0 .9,1.3± 0 .6和 1.4± 0 .7,0 .7± 0 .7和 0 .7± 0 .8,0 .8± 0 .8和 0 .5± 0 .7(均P >0 .0 5 ) ,未发生严重的不良反应。结论 :氮斯汀喷鼻剂与左卡巴斯汀喷鼻剂在治疗常年性变应性鼻炎时具相似的疗效和安全性     

盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷雾剂治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效观察

目的 探讨盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷雾剂治疗变应性鼻炎的临床疗效.方法 本文采用回顾性研究方法,收集我科经鼻内窥镜和鼻窦CT确诊的变应性鼻炎住院患者共120例.按照治疗方法不同分为两组,其中A组患者60例予以盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷雾剂,B组患者60例予以盐酸羟甲唑啉喷雾剂喷鼻.用药2个月后观察临床疗效.结果 A组特效率83.33%,显效率13.33%,好转率3.33%;B组特效率50.00%,显效率23.30%,好转率26.67%.A组的特效率与B组比较,χ2=15,P＜0.005差异有统计学意义.结论 盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷雾剂疗效好,治愈率高,值得临床推广.     

氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂治疗过敏性鼻炎的临床效果观察

目的：探讨氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂治疗过敏性鼻炎的临床效果。方法：将于我院接受治疗的136例过敏性鼻炎患者,采用随机、双盲、平行对照的方法分为两组。对照组68例患者给予左卡巴斯汀喷鼻剂喷鼻,观察组68例患者采用氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂喷鼻,并对两组患者的治疗效果比对分析。结果：观察组患者的显效率和总有效率分别为55.88%和92.64%,明显高于对照组的显效率和总有效率（30.88%和75.00%）,差异显著,P＜0.05,具有统计学意义。结论：氮卓斯汀喷鼻剂在治疗过敏性鼻炎的临床应用中疗效肯定,缩短了治疗时间,值得推广应用。     

盐酸氮卓斯汀片结合布地奈德鼻喷雾剂治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效观察

目的探讨盐酸氮卓斯汀结合布地奈德鼻喷雾剂治疗变应性鼻炎的临床疗效。方法选择我院2015年3月~2016年9月收治的81例变应性鼻炎患者为研究对象,以随机数字表法分为观察组(41例)与对照组(40例),对照组患者应用盐酸氮卓斯汀治疗,观察组采用盐酸氮卓斯汀联合布地奈德鼻喷雾剂治疗,对两组患者治疗后疗效、症状变化、炎症因子等进行观察。结果观察组治疗总有效率为95.12%,与对照组80.00%相比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗前,两组患者症状评分无明显差异(P>0.05),治疗后,观察组症状评分较对照组低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗前,两组患者血清炎性因子水平无明显差异(P>0.05)治疗后,观察组IL-6、TNF-α较对照组低,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论盐酸氮卓斯汀联合布地奈德鼻喷雾剂治疗变应性鼻炎效果满意,可快速缓解临床症状,也能控制炎性因子水平,利于远期预后,值得临床推广。     

盐酸氮卓斯汀与布地奈德治疗持续性变应性鼻炎的临床疗效评价

目的：评价盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂和布地奈德鼻喷剂对成人持续性变应性鼻炎（ AR）生活质量的影响。方法将148例持续性鼻炎患者随机分为试验组50例、对照组50例和安慰剂组48例。试验组予以盐酸氮卓斯汀喷鼻,每日早、晚各1次,每次每侧鼻腔1喷,每喷0．14 mg;对照组予以布地奈德喷鼻,每日早上1次,每次每侧鼻腔2喷,每喷64μg;安慰剂组予以0．9％氯化钠喷鼻,每日早上1次,每次每侧鼻腔2喷,3组患者均持续用药4周。用鼻部症状评分、生活质量评价量表（ SF－36）和鼻结膜炎相关生活质量问卷（ RQLQ）比较3组患者鼻部症状改善和生活质量。结果最终共有133例持续性鼻炎患者入组,其中试验组46例、对照组45例、安慰剂组42例。试验组和对照组治疗后,第2,4周的鼻部症状评分、SF－36和RQLQ评分均较安慰剂组明显改善（ P＜0．05）。治疗4周后,对照组鼻部症状评分、SF－36和RQLQ评分改善均较试验组更为显著（ P＜0．05）。结论盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂和布地奈德鼻喷剂均能明显改善成人持续性鼻炎患者生活质量,但布地奈德鼻喷剂治疗4周对持续性鼻炎患者生活质量改善较盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂更显著。     

轴舒良鼻喷剂对变应性鼻炎的疗效观察

目的 探讨辅舒良鼻喷客剂治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法 选择64例变应性鼻炎患者，随机分为两组，分别采用激素治疗组及抗组胺药物治疗组。结果 激素(辅舒良)治疗组有效率93％，抗组胺药治疗组有效率为80％，结论 激素疗法应用于变应性鼻炎疗效显著，副作用小。     

斯奇康在常年性变应性鼻炎治疗中的效果分析

目的：探讨斯奇康注射液治疗常年性变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法：收集本院2008年10月～2010年10月收治的变应性鼻炎患者80例,随机分为2组,治疗组局部鼻腔应用鼻用类固醇（辅舒良）联合应用斯奇康注射液;对照组单纯局部鼻腔应用鼻用类固醇（辅舒良）,比较两组症状变化及血清IgE变化。结果：停止治疗1个月,两组有效率差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;停止治疗2、3个月后两组对比,有效率差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,治疗前血清IgE比较差异无统计学意义。治疗后差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。在整个治疗过程中,部分患者除有鼻部不适外,均无不良反应。结论：斯奇康注射液佐治常年性变应性鼻炎的疗效是肯定的。     

Azelastine nasal spray and desloratadine tablets in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis: a pharmacodynamic study of onset of action and efficacy

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and onset of action of azelastine nasal spray and desloratadine tablets in patients with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 46 adult patients with a history of SAR were exposed to a controlled grass pollen concentration for 6 h in the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC) in each treatment period according to a randomised, double-blind (double-dummy), three-period, three-sequence crossover design (wash-out period of 12 days). Single doses of study medication (one puff nasal spray into each nostril of azelastine, 0.2 mg, or placebo before swallowing one encapsulated tablet of desloratadine, 5 mg) were administered 2 h after the start of the allergen challenge. Results of subjective and objective assessments were recorded throughout the challenge. RESULTS: Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray was significantly superior compared to desloratadine tablets (p = 0.005) and placebo (p < 0.001). Desloratadine was significantly better than placebo (p < 0.001). Decrease both in Major Nasal Symptom Score (MNSS) and in Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) was fastest after azelastine treatment. Improvement of nasal symptom severity was most pronounced after azelastine treatment for all nasal symptoms including nasal congestion. Onset of action was 15 min for azelastine compared to 150 min for desloratadine. Both active preparations were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the usefulness of azelastine nasal spray for the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Concerning onset of action in particular, the results favour the topical treatment over systemic therapy.     

Open-label evaluation of azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of azelastine (Astelin) nasal spray, a topical second-generation antihistamine, in the treatment of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis with nonallergic triggers (mixed rhinitis), and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 2343 primary care physicians, allergists, ENT specialists, and other health professionals participated in this 2-week, open-label evaluation of azelastine nasal spray. Data were collected through a physician questionnaire that included patient demographics, rhinitis diagnosis, medication history, and inclusion/exclusion criteria; and two patient questionnaires that included symptom history, response to previous rhinitis medications, symptom control, and level of satisfaction with azelastine nasal spray. A completed physician questionnaire and two completed patient questionnaires were required for each patient to be included in the analysis. Patients who qualified for enrollment were given open-label azelastine nasal spray and instructed to administer 2 sprays per nostril twice daily for 2 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1225 health professionals enrolled 7864 patients into the study. Completed physician and patient questionnaires were returned by 1081 health professionals and 5073 patients, 4364 of whom used azelastine nasal spray as their only rhinitis medication during the 2-week study period. The patients were predominantly caucasian (82.6%) and female (61.1%), with a mean age of 50 years. The majority had a diagnosis of mixed rhinitis (51.5%), followed by seasonal allergic rhinitis (32.3%), and nonallergic (vasomotor) rhinitis (16.2%). After 2 weeks of treatment, the percentage of patients reporting some control or complete control of individual symptoms ranged from 78% for postnasal drip in patients with nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis to 90% for sneezing in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. More than 85% of patients who reported difficulty sleeping or impairment of daytime activities due to rhinitis symptoms had improvement in these parameters. Azelastine nasal spray was well tolerated, the discontinuation rate due to adverse events was 2.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Azelastine nasal spray was reported to control all rhinitis symptoms, including nasal congestion, regardless of rhinitis diagnosis during the 2-week study period. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis plus nonallergic triggers were identified as patient types most likely to respond to azelastine nasal spray.     

斯奇康佐治常年性变应性鼻炎的临床评价

目的：斯奇康注射液治疗常年性变应性鼻炎的疗效观察与评价。方法：83例患者,随机分为两组,治疗组局部鼻腔应用鼻用类固醇（辅舒良）联合应用斯奇康注射液;对照组单纯局部鼻腔应用鼻用类固醇（辅舒良）。结论：两组对比指标为临床症状及血清IgE变化。停止治疗1个月,两组对比指标差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;停止治疗2个月、3个月后两组对比指标差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结果：斯奇康注射液佐治常年性变应性鼻炎的疗效值得肯定。     

丙酸氟替卡松鼻喷雾剂对儿童哮喘控制及过敏性鼻炎症状改善的作用

目的 比探讨丙酸氟替卡松鼻喷雾剂在改善儿童过敏性鼻炎症状以及控制哮喘反复发作方面的作用.方法 将100例过敏性鼻炎合并哮喘综合征患儿按照随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组.对照组应用氯雷他定及经口腔吸人糖皮质激素,观察组在此基础上使用丙酸氟替卡松鼻喷雾剂治疗,观察两组疗效.结果 观察组总有效率（94％）明显优于对照组（76％）（x2=6.35,P＜0.05）.10 ～ 12周以后,观察组与对照组鼻炎症状评分及哮喘症状评分差异均有统计学意义（t=2.47、2.64、3.41;2.30、3.17、2.47,均P＜0.05）.不良反应方面两组鼻腔干燥、鼻出血发生率差异均有统计学意义（x2 =7.11、7.53,均P＜0.05）.结论 丙酸氟替卡松鼻喷雾剂在改善儿童过敏性鼻炎和哮喘症状复发方面有很好疗效,值得临床大力推广.     

Comparative efficacy and safety of azelastine and levocabastine nasal sprays in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The aim of the present investigation was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8) (1.12 mg/day) and levocabastine (CAS 79547-78-7) (0.4 mg/day) nasal spray administered twice daily to patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. A total of 180 patients participated in a 4-week, double-blind, parallel group (n = 90 each) study. Symptom severity of nasal, ocular and other symptoms were recorded, out of which a total symptom score (TSS) was calculated. Physicians assessed symptoms at baseline and at days 7, 14, and 28, patients and physicians evaluated the efficacy and tolerability. After 4 weeks of treatment with azelastine the mean overall TSS was reduced from a baseline score of 18.7 to 4.2, after levocabastine from 17.8 to 5.9. Patients morning scores for treatment days 1 to 28 gave a mean total score of 212.4 for the azelastine group and 230.6 for the levocabastine group; the equivalent evening scores yielded a mean total score of 115.5 and 175.6 respectively. Global efficacy was judged by physicians as either 'very good' or 'good' for 90% of azelastine patients and for 74% of the levocabastine group; 92% of azelastine patients and 76% of levocabastine patients judged treatment to be either 'very good' or 'good'. No serious adverse events were reported, all adverse events were related to nasal symptoms. Both azelastine and levocabastine administered twice daily as a nasal spray provide effective and well tolerated symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Azelastine, however, was statistically superior in efficacy as well as in safety (PWei-Lachin < 0.0001, combined results).     

辅舒良水溶性鼻喷雾剂治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效观察

目的　观察辅舒良 (丙酸氟替卡松 )水溶性鼻喷雾剂对常年性和季节性变应性鼻炎的临床疗效。方法　按随机抽样的方法对 36例 10～ 6 0岁常年性和季节性变应性鼻炎患者使用辅舒良水溶性鼻喷雾剂治疗 ,于治疗前、治疗后 2、4周各项指标观察记分。结果　 36例在治疗后 2、4周平均记分均明显降低 ,统计学分析差异均有显著性 (P均 <0 0 1) ;治疗 2周后总有效率高达 10 0 % ,无 1例发生明显的毒副反应。结论　辅舒良水溶性鼻喷雾剂使用方便 ,起效快 ,效果好 ,无明显毒副作用 ,是治疗变应性鼻炎的全新选择     

Azelastine hydrochloride:a review of pharmacology,pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and tolerability

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Azelastine hydrochloride (Astelin) nasal spray 0.1% solution is a second-generation intranasal antihistamine available in the US for treatment of both seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis (VMR).

Scope: Searches of journal articles including the title word ‘azelastine’ from 1979 through the present were conducted by the product manufacturer primarily through Medline and EMBASE but also included, at various times, Dialog, Biosis, Toxline, and Diogenes (an adverse-event database). One limitation of the present review is that it could not exclude the possibility of publication bias, whereby findings from smaller studies and/or trials with negative findings may not have been published.

Findings: Azelastine is a phthalazinone derivative with H₁-receptor binding approximately tenfold greater than chlorpheniramine on a milligram-per-milligram basis. Azelastine has demonstrated a wide range of pharmacologic effects on chemical mediators of inflammation including leukotrienes, kinins, and platelet activating factor in vitro and in vivo. The molecule also has been shown to downregulate intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression and to reduce inflammatory cell migration in patients with rhinitis. Well-controlled studies in SAR and VMR demonstrated that azelastine nasal spray improves nasal symptoms of rhinitis, including congestion and postnasal drip, and has a rapid onset of action that appears likely due to topical activity. Azelastine nasal spray has demonstrated greater efficacy when used in combination with fluticasone propionate nasal spray when compared to either agent alone, and this combination may provide benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe rhinitis. Bitter taste is the most common side effect associated with azelastine nasal spray and this problem can be mitigated by the dosing technique recommended by the manufacturer in the product labeling. The incidence of somnolence also may be reduced with the recommended administration technique.

Conclusions: Azelastine is an effective, rapid-acting, and well-tolerated second-generation antihistamine that improves nasal symptoms associated with SAR and VMR. Clinical studies demonstrated that azelastine nasal spray can improve symptoms of SAR in patients who remained symptomatic after treatment with oral antihistamines and that azelastine nasal spray in combination with fluticasone nasal spray provided significantly (?p < 0.05) greater relief than either agent alone in patients with SAR.