Progress in understanding cytomegalovirus drug resistance.
A new AR drug class has recently been introduced (i.e. RO1AD58). Currently MP-AzeFlu is the only treatment option within this drug class. It can be estimated that combination treatments like MP-AzeFlu will become the mainstay of PAR and PER therapy since use will result in better compliance, improved efficacy over INS and a faster response together with good levels of tolerability. The challenge is to find other equally, or more effective, combination treatments, as has been the therapeutic standard in bronchial asthma for decades. The potential of biologics, as well as TLR-agonists and other new treatment options needs to be further evaluated.
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for seasonal allergic rhinitis in adolescents and adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to September 2005 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Overall, patients in the azelastine group used 2.5 times less backup medication (p = 0.024) for relief of their asthma symptoms than patients in the placebo group. Reductions in asthma symptoms in the azelastine group were also noted throughout the double-blind treatment period. Moreover, the azelastine group had statistically significant improvements in FEV1 after the first dose of medication. The only notable adverse experiences in the azelastine group were alterations in taste perception and a small mean increase in body weight.
The causal treatment of chronic pruritus is not always possible or effective necessitating symptomatic antipruritic therapy. Antihistamines are the only drugs approved for the treatment of chronic pruritus, but they are rarely effective at standard doses. The aim of this investigation was to describe the efficacy and safety of high-dosage antihistamine treatment in patients with chronic pruritus of different origin.
MEDLINE searches were conducted to identify placebo-controlled studies of commercially available prescription nasal sprays at U.S.-approved doses and indications, and published after an earlier systematic review of AR treatment. Inclusion criteria were 20 subjects; duration of 2 weeks for seasonal (or episodic) AR, 4 weeks for perennial (or persistent) AR, and reporting a total nasal symptom score as a primary or secondary outcome.
The investigated local H1 antihistaminic drugs proved to be effective in monotherapy of acute phase of allergic conjunctivitis. The drugs influence subjective complaints faster and more efficiently than the objective signs. The therapy of objective manifestations requires longer period of time for the effect to develop.
We compared the efficacy and tolerance of Azelastine nasal spray (0.14 mg in each nostril twice a day) versus Ebastine tablets (10 mg) as a single night dose in a Phase IV open, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial lasting 14 days, conducted with 63 patients diagnosed of seasonal allergic rhinitis. The symptoms assessed before and after the treatment period were: sneezing, nasal pruritus, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, conjunctival erythema, eye pruritus, eye watering, photophobia, pharyngeal pruritus and cough. Each symptom was rated by the patients according to a 4-point scale: absent: 0, mild: 1, moderate: 2, and severe: 3. The score required to be included in the study was 8 or above. In addition, the resistance of nasal fossae was assessed, before and after the treatment, by active anterior rhinomanometry, as well as the appearance of adverse events. Both drugs were equally effective both in the control of symptoms and in decreasing the airway resistance and no statistically significant differences were observed in the variables tested in both groups. We concluded that Azelastine nasal spray is a treatment as effective as Ebastine in the relief of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, with an excellent tolerance and minimum adverse effects.
Objectives. Allergic rhinitis is a common disease with increasing prevalence and high impact on economic burden and comorbidities. As treatment with pharmacological drugs is not always satisfactory due to side effects and incomplete efficacy, alternative treatment strategies are needed. Ectoine is an osmolyte with membrane stabilizing and inflammation reducing capacities. Nasal spray and eye drops containing ectoine are promising new treatment regimens for allergic rhinitis sufferers. Design and Methods. The current two noninterventional trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops for treating allergic rhinitis in comparison with either azelastine or cromoglycic acid containing products. Nasal and ocular symptom developments as well as judgment of tolerability and efficacy were assessed both by investigators and patients over a time period of one to two weeks. Results. Both trials confirmed that ectoine containing products reduced nasal and ocular symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients. Results clearly demonstrated good safety profiles of the ectoine products comparable to those of azelastine and even better to those of cromoglycate products. Conclusion. Ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops are interesting new treatment strategies for sufferers of allergic rhinitis, combining both good efficacy and absence of side effects.