盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合布地奈德鼻喷剂治疗持续性变应性鼻炎疗效观察

目的 观察盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合布地奈德鼻喷剂治疗持续性变应性鼻炎的临床疗效.方法 随机将120例持续性变应性鼻炎患者分为A组、B组及C组各40例,A组给予盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合布地奈德鼻喷剂喷鼻,B组只给予盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂喷鼻,C组只给予布地奈德鼻喷雾剂喷鼻.疗程4周.比较3组患者治疗4周后临床疗效.结果 ①视觉模拟量表评分:4周后A组患者鼻部症状视觉模拟量表评分均较B组及C组低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);②鼻-结膜炎相关生活质量问卷评分:4周后3组患者鼻-结膜炎相关生活质量问卷评分均比治疗前有显著改善,而A组在睡眠、非鼻-结膜炎症状、鼻部症状及情感反应等4方面的评分与B组、C组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);③疗效:A组患者显效率50.00%及总有效率92.50%,分别与B组(30.00%,75.00%)及C组(27.50,77.50%)比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合布地奈德鼻喷剂治疗持续性变应性鼻炎可以迅速缓解鼻部症状,提高患者生活质量.     

盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂治疗变应性鼻炎的临床疗效分析

目的观察盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂治疗变应性鼻炎（allergic rhinitis,AR）的临床疗效。方法对235例变应性鼻炎患者应用盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂治疗2个月,每天2次（0.56mg/d）,每次每鼻孔1喷,应用2周及2个月后评价其临床疗效。结果轻度间歇性AR、中重度间歇性AR、轻度持续性AR和中重度持续性AR应用盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂治疗前后其临床症状（包括打喷嚏、流清涕、鼻塞、鼻痒等）和体征不同记分例数比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）;治疗2周及2个月后显效率分别为56.4%,55.3%;有效率分别为30.9%,31.7%;无效率为12.7%,13%。结论盐酸氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂能有效缓解变应性鼻炎患者由组织胺和炎症细胞及其介质所引起的相关临床症状,治疗上是有效和安全的。     

氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合孟鲁司特治疗成人持续性中-重度变应性鼻炎疗效观察

目的探讨氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合孟鲁司特治疗成人持续性中-重度变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法将99例患者按随机数字法分为A、B、C 3组,每组各33例。其中A组单纯给予氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂,每次每鼻孔1揿,每日早晚各1次;B组单纯给予孟鲁司特10 mg口服,每晚1次;C组为氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合孟鲁司特治疗,剂量、用法于A、B组相同。治疗4周后,比较各组临床症状总分及生活质量总分改善情况。结果 3组临床症状总分及生活质量总分与治疗前比较,均有改善（P〈0.05）;且C组临床症状总分及生活质量总分改善情况均高于A、B组,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂联合孟鲁司特治疗成人持续性中-重度变应性鼻炎有协同作用,较单独使用两药效果更好。     

盐酸氮(艹卓)斯汀鼻喷剂治疗变应性鼻炎

盐酸氮[艹卓]斯汀（azelastine hydrochloride）是较新的第二代抗组胺药，剂型分为鼻喷剂（如德国爱斯达药厂生产的爱赛平）和口服剂。在美国采用鼻喷剂治疗季节性变应性鼻炎和血管运动性鼻炎，推荐剂量为1喷（0．14mg）／每鼻孔，每日2次，日剂量为0．56mg；欧洲也采用鼻喷剂治疗季节性和常年性变应性鼻炎，推荐剂量为2喷（0．28mg）／每鼻孔，每日2次，日剂量为1．12mg；日本主要采用口服片剂治疗哮喘、荨麻疹和变应性鼻炎，剂量为2～4mg，每日1～2次。本药的药理学特点是：①具有明显的H1受体拈抗作用和广谱抗炎活性；②起效快（15min以内起效）；③副作用少见，且无严重性。因此，盐酸氮[艹卓]斯汀是治疗变应性鼻炎有效而安全的药物之一。     

盐酸氮卓斯汀和丙酸氟替卡松治疗变应性鼻炎

目的：观察鼻用盐酸氮卓斯汀和丙酸氟替卡松单独应用及联合应用治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法：采用随机对照的试验方法选择109例持续性变应性鼻炎患者(15～76岁，平均35.6岁)，按照2004年兰州标准分为轻度和中、重度。轻度患者随机分为2组，分别予以盐酸氮卓斯汀和丙酸氟替卡松喷鼻，均为每鼻孔1掀，2次/d，疗程30?d。中、重度患者随机分为3组,分别予以盐酸氮卓斯汀、丙酸氟替卡松（用法同上）和两药并用（两药间隔时间30?min）。结果：轻度组盐酸氮卓斯汀和丙酸氟替卡松有效率分别为86.36%和92.00%，两组有效率差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。中、重度组单用盐酸氮卓斯汀（1组）、丙酸氟替卡松（2组）和两药并用（3组）的有效率分别为66.67%、73.33% 和96.88%，1、2组有效率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)，1、3组和2、3组差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。盐酸氮卓斯汀组和丙酸氟替卡松组的总有效率分别为83.78%和90.00%,两组差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论：盐酸氮卓斯汀和丙酸氟替卡松可作为治疗变应性鼻炎的一线用药,二者联合可治疗中、重度变应性鼻炎。     

鼻内联合用药改善持续性非变应性鼻炎鼻塞症状的临床研究

目的:评估鼻内联合应用鼻用抗组胺药氮卓斯汀鼻喷剂(AZENS)和鼻用激素丙酸氟替卡松鼻喷剂(FPNS)改善持续性非变应性鼻炎(NAR)鼻塞症状的有效性。方法:162例持续性NAR患者随机分为联合治疗组(AZENS+FPNS)和鼻用激素组(FPNS),比较2组患者在治疗前、治疗2周及6周时鼻塞症状的评分,并对治疗方案(包括方便性、不良反应、费用、疗效)进行总的满意度评价。结果:2组患者的鼻塞症状在治疗前、治疗2周和6周的3次评分均呈现逐次下降趋势,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01);在治疗2周和6周时,联合治疗组患者鼻塞症状的改善明显优于鼻用激素组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。联合治疗组患者对治疗方案总的满意度评价优于鼻用激素组(P<0.05)。结论:鼻内联合用药能更快速有效地改善持续性NAR的鼻塞症状,同时具有良好的安全性和耐受性。     

氟替卡松联合玉屏风胶囊治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效观察

目的：探讨应用氟替卡松鼻喷剂加口服玉屏风胶囊治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法将150例变应性鼻炎的患者随机分为2组。A组（83例）应用氟替卡松鼻喷剂及玉屏风胶囊治疗。B组（67例）单纯用氟替卡松鼻喷剂;随访1年。观察其症状、体征进行评分计算改善率。结果治疗结束1月及1年A组显效率均明显高于B组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论应用氟替卡松鼻喷剂结合口服玉屏风胶囊治疗变应性鼻炎具有疗效更好、更快速特点。     

卡介菌多糖核酸对变应性鼻炎的免疫调节及临床疗效观察

目的:观察卡介菌多糖核酸(BCG-PSN)对常年性变应性鼻炎患者的免疫调节作用及临床疗效。方法:将60例常年性变应性鼻炎患者随机分为试验组和对照组,每组30例。试验组在与对照组相同治疗的基础上给予卡介菌多糖核酸注射液1ml(0.5mg),肌肉注射,隔日1次,疗程为6周。两组均随访3个月,每2周门诊随访1次,对临床情况进行评价,并检测两组患者治疗前、后血清IgA、IgG、IgM、IgE、CD3、CD4及CD8水平。结果:试验组有效率为93.33%,对照组为63.33%,其差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);卡介菌多糖核酸治疗后CD3、CD4、CD4/CD8水平均明显升高,分别与治疗前及对照组的治疗后比较,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。治疗后IgA、IgM和IgE明显降低,与治疗前比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05),其中IgE与对照组的治疗后比较,差异亦有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:卡介菌多糖核酸可调节常年性变应性鼻炎患者的免疫功能,与抗过敏药物联合应用可提高其疗效,具有临床实用价值。     

辛芩颗粒联合丙酸氟替卡松鼻喷剂治疗变应性鼻炎的临床观察

目的 观察联合应用辛芩颗粒和丙酸氟替卡松鼻喷剂治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效和安全性,探讨中西医结合治疗的临床价值.方法 将门诊确诊为变应性鼻炎的120例患者随机分为治疗组与对照组,治疗组60例采用辛芩颗粒口服以及丙酸氟替卡松喷鼻进行治疗;对照组60例单独使用丙酸氟替卡松喷鼻治疗,疗程均为一个月.结果 治疗组和对照组患者治疗一个月结束时,总有效率分别为86.7％和70.0％ (P＜0.05);治疗结束一个月后进行随访观察,总有效率分别为75.0％和53.3％(P＜0.05),差异均有统计学意义.两组患者在治疗期间及随访过程中均未发生全身和局部不良反应,且患者的耐受性良好.结论 中西医结合治疗变应性鼻炎在临床上取得良好的效果和安全性,而且停药后可使疗效得以巩固,延缓症状复发,是较理想的药物治疗方法.     

血管运动性鼻炎患者鼻通气功能的评估

目的 检测血管运动性鼻炎患者的鼻通气功能,分析其与主观症状的相关性,并与健康对照组进行比较.方法 选择血管运动性鼻炎患者105例,健康对照组成人71例.采用鼻阻力测量获得压力-流速曲线,进而得到75 Pa和150 Pa下鼻腔总阻力值.采用鼻声反射测量应用鼻用缩血管药物前后的面积-距离曲线,进而得到鼻腔最小横截面积,计算鼻腔充血指数.对比两组研究对象各项鼻阻力和鼻声反射测量指标,分析血管运动性鼻炎患者主观症状评分与鼻通气功能指标间的相关性.采用SPSS 16.0软件进行统计分析.结果 血管运动性鼻炎患者鼻阻力、鼻声反射指标与各种鼻部症状间的相关性分析均无统计学意义(P值均>0.05).收缩前后的鼻腔最小横截面积在两组间差异未见统计学意义(Z值分别为-1.541、-0.626,P值均>0.05);鼻腔充血指数在两组间差异有统计学意义(Z=-2.707,P<0.05).75 Pa下鼻总阻力值在两组间差异有统计学意义(Z=-4.334,P<0.05);150 Pa下鼻总阻力值在两组间差异无统计学意义(Z=-1.314,P>0.05).结论 血管运动性鼻炎患者主观症状与客观鼻生理功能检测结果 间无相关性,在诊疗过程中需全面综合评价患者的主观症状和客观检测结果 .     

舌下含服粉尘螨滴剂联合鼻用激素治疗变应性鼻炎疗效观察

目的 评估舌下特异性免疫治疗联合鼻用激素治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法 将能坚持治疗并定期随访的90例对粉尘螨过敏的变应性鼻炎患者资料纳入研究,随机分为两组,其中60例接受舌下免疫治疗(SLIT)联合鼻用激素治疗,另30例只用鼻用激素治疗,分别记录两组患者治疗前及治疗后6、12个月的症状评分(鼻痒、喷嚏、流涕、鼻塞症状评分)和症状总评分。结果 两组治疗后鼻炎症状均有显著改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);联合治疗组12个月后较治疗6个月后鼻炎症状改善更显著(P<0.05),而单用激素组未再有明显改善(P>0.05);联合治疗组较单用激素组无论6个月后还是12个月后症状改善均更为显著(P<0.05)。结论 舌下特异性免疫治疗联合鼻用激素治疗变应性鼻炎较单用激素更为有效。     

A placebo controlled study comparing the efficacy of intranasal azelastine and beclomethasone in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

This study compared a new intranasal anti-allergic drug, azelastine (0.56 mg bid) with intranasal beclomethasone (0.2 mg bid) and placebo in the treatment of symptoms associated with seasonal rhinitis. After administering placebo for 3–5 days as a run-in period, eligible patients were randomized to treatment for 2 weeks: 83 patients received azelastine, 83 beclomethasone and 77 placebo. Each of six symptoms was assessed daily using a four-point scale. Total symptom scores showed that azelastine-treated patients experienced a more rapid onset of overall symptom relief than beclomethasone-treated patients. This was significant on day 1 (P < 0.003) and continued until day 5. By the end of the 2-week study period, the beclomethasone-treated group showed greater improvement than both the azelastine and placebo groups (P = 0.002 andP = 0.0001, respectively). In contrast, visual analogue scales at this time showed no significant differences between the azelastine and beclomethasone treatment groups, with both groups demonstrating significant reductions in total symptom scores compared to placebo (P = 0.0004 andP = 0.0001, respectively). Differing sensitivities were found in the four-point scales reported by the patients and the investigators and the patients' visual analogue scales in the measurement of symptom severity. However, all three techniques confirmed that both azelastine nasal spray and beclomethasone nasal spray were effective treatments for seasonal rhinitis. While a greater improvement in overall symptoms was found for the beclamethasone-treated patients compared to azelastine-treated patients, diary card data confirmed the more immediate onset of symptom relief provided by azelastine. No serious adverse events were found in the present study and included no complaints of drowsiness.     

A multicenter clinical study of the efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a comparison with oral cetirizine

A new topically administered intranasal antiallergic drug, azelastine, was investigated in a large randomized multicenter study that compared it with oral cetirizine from the aspects of efficacy and safety. Patients were treated for 14 days, and efficacy was assessed on days 7 and 14 by means of an investigator rating scale measuring the severity of eight nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal rhinitis. In addition, patients recorded the extent of individual symptoms on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Tolerability was assessed on the basis of adverse events reported. Data from a total of 129 patients were included in the analysis of drug efficacy. Treatment groups had significant reductions in the investigators' total symptom score during treatment. These reductions were 47% and 55% for azelastine and cetirizine, respectively, at day 7 and 61% and 67% at day 14. There were no differences between the two groups whether they were analyzed overall or separately for nasal and ocular symptoms. Patients' daily VAS scores showed a significantly better resolution of nasal stuffiness and rhinorrhea in the azelastine-treated group than in the cetirizine-treated group. There were no differences for any other symptom. Adverse events were reported by 12 patients in the azelastine group and 20 patients in the cetirizin group. Drowsiness was the only frequently occurring event and this was in the azelastine group (P = 0.003).     

不同年龄变应性鼻炎患者使用标准化粉尘螨滴剂舌下免疫治疗的疗效评估

目的　评估舌下免疫治疗（s ubl i ng u a l immunotherapy,SLIT）在不同年龄变应性鼻炎患者的疗效差异。方法　回顾性分析229例对粉尘螨过敏的变应性鼻炎患者完成2年或2年以上的SLIT,按年龄分为青春期前组107例,青春期组53例,成人期组69例,组间和组内比较治疗满3个月、1年、2年时疗效评估指标（VAS评分、鼻炎症状评分、用药评分）变化量的差异。结果　与治疗前相比,SLIT治疗3个月、1年、2年时,229例变应性鼻炎患者VAS评分,鼻炎症状评分,药物评分均显著降低。3个年龄组间,在治疗满3个月、1年、2年时的鼻炎症状评分（H =0.844、4.153、2.669,P 均>0.05）、VAS评分（H =1.356、3.720、0.313,P 均>0.05）、用药评分（H =1.044、5.841、3.399,P 均>0.05）均无统计学差异。治疗满2年与1年的疗效比较,仅在VAS评分上有显著差异（Z =1.635,P =0.01）。结论　标准化粉尘螨滴剂SLIT对变应性鼻炎患者有良好疗效和安全性,SLIT疗效无年龄差异。     

Effects of intranasal azelastine on the response to nasal allergen challenge.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Azelastine, a second-generation H1-receptor antagonist, is available for topical administration. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of topical intranasal azelastine on the early-phase and the late-phase allergic responses and on nasal hyper-responsiveness to methacholine. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study in 20 subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis, out of their allergy season. METHODS: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or two puffs of azelastine twice a day (548 microg/d) for 2 weeks followed by nasal challenge with allergen. Twenty-four hours later, while still receiving treatment, subjects underwent a nasal lavage and a nasal challenge with methacholine. End points included symptom scores, levels of mediators and number of eosinophils in nasal lavages, and the weight of secretions after methacholine challenge. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, treatment with intranasal azelastine resulted in significant reductions in allergen-induced sneezing, rhinorrhea, itching, nasal congestion, and levels of albumin during the early-phase response (P <.05). Azelastine had no effect on levels of histamine or tryptase during the early-phase response. There was a significant eosinophil influx 24 hours after challenge, which was not inhibited by azelastine. Treatment with azelastine had no effect on the levels of albumin, interleukin-4, interleukin-5, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and eosinophil cationic protein during the late-phase response. However, azelastine did show a significant inhibitory effect on the methacholine response 24 hours after nasal allergen challenge (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of intranasal azelastine are similar to those of oral second-generation antihistamines.     

CT assessment of the effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray treatment on lower turbinate hypertrophy due to vasomotor rhinitis

CONCLUSION: Fluticasone propionate (FP) aqueous nasal spray was objectively found to be effective and safe for the treatment of lower turbinate enlargement in patients with vasomotor rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of FP aqueous nasal spray treatment in lower turbinate hypertrophy due to vasomotor rhinitis using CT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Of 35 patients with hypertrophic lower turbinates due to vasomotor rhinitis, 20 were treated twice daily with FP aqueous nasal spray (200 microg/day) for 3 months continuously and 15 were treated with placebo vehicle as a control group. The local effect of the nasal spray was studied using CT and visual analog scales. RESULTS: Treatment with FP provided significantly greater relief from the symptom of nasal obstruction compared with placebo over the entire 3-month treatment period (p < 0.001). When the change from baseline was compared between the two groups, FP produced statistically significant reductions in the mucosal area of the lower turbinates and in the thickness of the nasal mucosa after 3 months (p < 0.05).     

变应性鼻炎联合用药及鼻用激素维持治疗的疗效

目的评估变应性鼻炎（AR）患者联合用药、单独鼻用激素维持治疗的疗效及生活质量。方法 24例中重度持续性AR患者,使用布地奈德鼻喷雾剂和口服氯雷他定1周治疗。18例显效患者随机分为布地奈德维持用药实验组（11例）和停止用药对照组（7例）。通过临床症状、视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）及鼻结膜炎相关生活质量问卷（rhinoconjunctivitis quality of Life questionnaire,RQLQ）进行评估。结果联合用药1周,临床症状及生活质量均得到显著性改善（P〈0.01）,治疗总有效率为91.7%（22/24）。在维持治疗1个月后,实验组与对照组症状评分较联合治疗结束时显著性升高（P〈0.01）;VAS及RQLQ评分亦升高,但差异无显著性。结论对中重度持续性AR联合用药可有效控制症状,症状控制后鼻用激素维持治疗可改善生活质量。     

Vasomotor rhinitis: clinical efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in comparison with placebo

The H(1) antagonist azelastine is used in nasal sprays for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, but its therapeutic efficacy in vasomotor rhinitis is unknown. We performed a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and tolerance of azelastine nasal spray in 89 adult patients with vasomotor rhinitis (confirmed by negative Phadiatop). Following a washout period, patients were treated for 15 days with one puff three times daily per nostril of azelastine (n = 44) or placebo (n = 45) nasal spray. Efficacy was evaluated by the reduction in symptomatology and by rhinoscopy. Intent-to-treat analysis revealed better results in the azelastine group for all assessed symptoms; the significance level was reached for nasal obstruction on day 15 (p = 0.042). Using per protocol analysis (in 85 patients complying with the protocol), the significance level was reached for nasal obstruction on day 15 (p = 0.017) and for the percentage of success in rhinorrhea (p = 0.023). In the azelastine group, rhinoscopy examination showed a significantly higher reduction in the inflammatory level and edema of the nasal mucosa (p = 0.03 and 0.02 for VAS on day 15 respectively, per protocol analysis). General efficacy assessment by the physician and the patient was in favor of azelastine (with significance levels <0.01). No drowsiness or serious adverse event was reported, and the frequency of mouth dryness and headaches was similar in the two treatment groups. The present study demonstrates the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of vasomotor rhinitis. The best achieved results were a decrease in nasal obstruction and mucosal edema. Further studies are required to investigate if this therapeutic benefit results from H(1) antagonism or from another, not well-characterized pharmacological action of azelastine.