Greiff L, Andersson M, Svensson C, Persson C G
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Lund University Hospital, Sweden.
Clin Exp Allergy. 1997 Apr;27(4):438-44.
Oral anti-histamine drugs are widely used in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Recently, anti-histamines have become available also for topical treatment.
The present study, involving healthy subjects, examined the effect of topical azelastine on luminal entry of alpha 2-macroglobulin and symptoms evoked by repeat histamine challenges during 24 h. The effect was compared to a clinical dose of the oral anti-histamine cetirizine and to placebo treatments.
Placebo and azelastine (0.254 mg per nasal cavity) were delivered as two consecutive actuations per nasal cavity using a nasal spray device. Oral placebo and cetirizine (10 mg) were given as single doses in a placebo-controlled (double-dummy), double-blind, and cross-over design. Histamine-challenges were given 1 h before treatment, and 1, 6, 9, 12, and 24 h after each treatment. The nasal mucosal surface was lavaged after each challenge. The lavage-fluid levels of alpha 2-macroglobulin were determined to assess mucosal exudation of bulk plasma, and nasal symptoms were scored.
Histamine (40-400 micrograms/mL) produced dose-dependent exudation and symptoms. Compared between each treatment and placebo, azelastine and cetirizine reduced the 40 and/or 400 micrograms/mL histamine-induced mucosal exudation of plasma from 1-12 h after treatment. In addition, cetirizine reduced the 40 micrograms/mL histamine-induced mucosal exudation of plasma 24 h after treatment. Differences between the two treatments were not evident regarding nasal symptoms.
Histamine challenge-induced mucosal exudation of plasma appears to be a useful method for studies of the duration of action of antihistamines. We conclude that topical azelastine is suited for b.i.d. therapy and that neither the exudative process nor watery secretion may impede the efficacy or the duration of action of this nasal drug.
口服抗组胺药物广泛用于治疗季节性变应性鼻炎。近来,抗组胺药也已可用于局部治疗。
本研究纳入健康受试者,检测局部用氮卓斯汀对α2-巨球蛋白管腔进入及重复组胺激发24小时内诱发症状的影响。将该影响与口服抗组胺药西替利嗪的临床剂量及安慰剂治疗进行比较。
使用鼻喷雾装置,安慰剂和氮卓斯汀(每鼻腔0.254mg)以每鼻腔连续两次喷雾给药。口服安慰剂和西替利嗪(10mg)以单剂量给予,采用安慰剂对照(双盲)、双盲和交叉设计。组胺激发在治疗前1小时以及每次治疗后1、6、9、12和24小时进行。每次激发后对鼻黏膜表面进行灌洗。测定灌洗液中α2-巨球蛋白水平以评估血浆的黏膜渗出情况,并对鼻部症状进行评分。
组胺(40 - 400μg/mL)产生剂量依赖性渗出和症状。各治疗组与安慰剂组比较,氮卓斯汀和西替利嗪在治疗后1 - 12小时可减少40和/或400μg/mL组胺诱导的血浆黏膜渗出。此外,西替利嗪在治疗后24小时可减少40μg/mL组胺诱导的血浆黏膜渗出。两种治疗在鼻部症状方面差异不明显。
组胺激发诱导的血浆黏膜渗出似乎是研究抗组胺药作用持续时间的一种有用方法。我们得出结论,局部用氮卓斯汀适用于每日两次治疗,且渗出过程和水样分泌均不会妨碍这种鼻用药物的疗效或作用持续时间。