Salvage therapy with tenofovir followed by adefovir maintenance in a cirrhotic patient with a lamivudine resistant HBV flare.
The action spectrum of solar urticaria varies among cases. In addition, light spectra outside the activating wavelengths can influence the wheal formation in selected patients.
In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, clinical trial, 20 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were challenged in 1 nostril with antigen, and the response was monitored in both nostrils and in both eyes. Symptoms were recorded. Filter paper disks (intranasally) and Schirmer strips (intraocularly) were used for collecting secretions, which were subsequently eluted for the measurement of histamine and albumin levels. Patients were treated once topically at the site of challenge with azelastine or placebo.
Two Spanish prospective monitoring studies evaluated efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray containing azelastine hydrochloride for allergic rhinitis. Both studies were conducted by community practitioners over two weeks (Study I) or one month (Study II). The numbers of patients recruited were 3680 (I) and 4002 (II). Of these, 56.1% (I) and 51.7% (II) had been previously treated with oral antihistamines with/without other medications. Patients rated the severity of 10 symptoms of allergic rhinitis as absent, mild, moderate or severe. Azelastine nasal spray was generally administered at a dose of one spray puff (0.14 mg) per nostril twice daily. Follow-up was after 14 days (I) or 31 days (II), when symptoms were rated and patients questioned about treatment. Assessment was by a sum score for all 10 symptoms. A symptom sum score of 16-20 occurred in 21.1% (I) and 13.7% (II) of patients before treatment and only 0.8% (I) and 0.6% (II) after treatment. A symptom sum score of 11-15 occurred in 35.9% (I) and 30.5% (II) of patients before treatment and only 2.6% (I) and 2.8% (II) after treatment. Overall, 92.3% (I) and 90.7% (II) of patients were completely free of adverse events, 7.0% (I) and 8.8% (II) experienced one and 0.7% (I) and 0.6% (II) two adverse events. The number of doctors who rated efficacy as either very good or good was 89.4% (I) and 84.6% (II). General tolerance was rated as good or very good by 97.5% (I) and 97.3% (II), and local tolerance by 93.1% (I) and 91.5% (II) of physicians, respectively. Overall, azelastine nasal spray was highly effective and very well tolerated in normal clinical practice.
It is unclear what constitutes a clinically meaningful response for allergic rhinitis (AR) outcomes. The objectives of these post hoc analyses were (1) to define a clinically meaningful response using novel efficacy analyses (including a responder analysis), and (2) to compare the efficacy of MP29-02 [a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP)] with commercially available FP, AZE and placebo in seasonal AR (SAR) patients, using these novel analyses.
Currently available oral second-generation antihistamines do not provide adequate symptom relief for many allergy patients.
Levocetirizine has modest sedative effects with a risk ratio of 1.67 when compared with placebo. The sedative effects observed for levocetirizine are not different from other second-generation antihistamines.
The efficacy of these medications at improving subjective sleep quality has been established through multiple randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.
Decreased urinary N-methylhistamine excretion may be a direct reflection of the antihistaminic action of azelastine in vivo. Measurement of urinary N-methylhistamine excretion can be used to evaluate the efficacy of agents with antihistaminic action in the treatment of bronchial asthma.
We examined whether azelastine would inhibit itch-associated responses of mice to mosquito allergy. Repeated injections of mosquito salivary gland extract increased scratching and sensory nerve activity. Azelastine inhibited the increased scratching and nerve activity, while terfenadine was without effects. Dexamethasone did not affect the increased scratching. Azelastine suppressed high K(+)-induced increase in intracellular free Ca(2+) in primary cultures of mouse sensory neurons. Direct inhibition by azelastine of sensory neurons may be at least involved in the anti-pruritic effect of azelastine. Histamine, substance P, and leukotriene B(4) may not play a key role in the itching of mosquito allergy.
This study was funded by Meda Pharmaceuticals. Authors were either employed by Meda Pharmaceuticals or received consulting fees from Meda Pharmaceuticals. Comprehensive Health Insights and Sedaghat received funding from Meda Pharmaceuticals as a consultant to participate in this study. Dufour and Caldwell-Tarr are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights. Harrow is currently employed by TESARO. This study was conceived by Harrow, Dufour, and Caldwell-Tarr. All authors contributed to the design of the study. Dufour took the lead in data collection, along with Caldwell-Tarr, and data interpretion was performed by Harrow, along with the other authors. Analyses were performed by Dufour. The manuscript was written and revised by all authors.