Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Two-week comparison study of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% versus azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% in patients with vasomotor rhinitis.
Allergy Asthma Proc. 2011 Mar-Apr; 32(2):151-8.AA

Abstract

Olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) and azelastine nasal spray 137 micrograms (AZE) are effective in treating allergic rhinitis and AZE is indicated for nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis (VMR). This study evaluates the relative safety and efficacy of OLO and AZE in patients with VMR. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study compared OLO (an investigational use) with AZE over 14 days in patients (n = 129) ≥12 years of age with chronic VMR. Efficacy included the severity of nasal symptom scores. Safety included adverse events (AEs) and nasal examinations. Patient perceptions of treatment satisfaction and changes in allergy condition were determined using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication and Patient Global Assessment scores. In the OLO and AZE groups, reflective scores for individual nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and sneezing) and total nasal VMR symptom scores decreased significantly from baseline to day 14 (p < 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed (p > 0.05). No serious AEs were reported in either group. Overall, 22 and 20 AEs were reported in the OLO and AZE groups, respectively. The most common AE was taste disturbance, reported by three (5.3%) and six (10.3%) patients in the OLO and AZE groups, respectively. Patients in both groups reported similar treatment satisfaction scores and a majority of patients in both groups perceived an overall improvement in their rhinitis condition. OLO has a similar efficacy and safety profile to AZE for the management of VMR in patients ≥12 years of age.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Allergy and Asthma Care, Germantown, Tennessee 38138, USA. phillieberman@hotmail.comNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

21352639

Citation

Lieberman, Phil, et al. "Two-week Comparison Study of Olopatadine Hydrochloride Nasal Spray 0.6% Versus Azelastine Hydrochloride Nasal Spray 0.1% in Patients With Vasomotor Rhinitis." Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, vol. 32, no. 2, 2011, pp. 151-8.
Lieberman P, Meltzer EO, LaForce CF, et al. Two-week comparison study of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% versus azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% in patients with vasomotor rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2011;32(2):151-8.
Lieberman, P., Meltzer, E. O., LaForce, C. F., Darter, A. L., & Tort, M. J. (2011). Two-week comparison study of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% versus azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% in patients with vasomotor rhinitis. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, 32(2), 151-8. https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2011.32.3439
Lieberman P, et al. Two-week Comparison Study of Olopatadine Hydrochloride Nasal Spray 0.6% Versus Azelastine Hydrochloride Nasal Spray 0.1% in Patients With Vasomotor Rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2011;32(2):151-8. PubMed PMID: 21352639.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Two-week comparison study of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% versus azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% in patients with vasomotor rhinitis. AU - Lieberman,Phil, AU - Meltzer,Eli O, AU - LaForce,Craig F, AU - Darter,Amy L, AU - Tort,Maria J, Y1 - 2011/02/23/ PY - 2011/3/1/entrez PY - 2011/3/1/pubmed PY - 2011/10/1/medline SP - 151 EP - 8 JF - Allergy and asthma proceedings JO - Allergy Asthma Proc VL - 32 IS - 2 N2 - Olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) and azelastine nasal spray 137 micrograms (AZE) are effective in treating allergic rhinitis and AZE is indicated for nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis (VMR). This study evaluates the relative safety and efficacy of OLO and AZE in patients with VMR. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study compared OLO (an investigational use) with AZE over 14 days in patients (n = 129) ≥12 years of age with chronic VMR. Efficacy included the severity of nasal symptom scores. Safety included adverse events (AEs) and nasal examinations. Patient perceptions of treatment satisfaction and changes in allergy condition were determined using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication and Patient Global Assessment scores. In the OLO and AZE groups, reflective scores for individual nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and sneezing) and total nasal VMR symptom scores decreased significantly from baseline to day 14 (p < 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed (p > 0.05). No serious AEs were reported in either group. Overall, 22 and 20 AEs were reported in the OLO and AZE groups, respectively. The most common AE was taste disturbance, reported by three (5.3%) and six (10.3%) patients in the OLO and AZE groups, respectively. Patients in both groups reported similar treatment satisfaction scores and a majority of patients in both groups perceived an overall improvement in their rhinitis condition. OLO has a similar efficacy and safety profile to AZE for the management of VMR in patients ≥12 years of age. SN - 1539-6304 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/21352639/Two_week_comparison_study_of_olopatadine_hydrochloride_nasal_spray_0_6_versus_azelastine_hydrochloride_nasal_spray_0_1_in_patients_with_vasomotor_rhinitis_ L2 - https://www.ingentaconnect.com/openurl?genre=article&amp;issn=1088-5412&amp;volume=32&amp;issue=2&amp;spage=151&amp;aulast=Lieberman DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -