Comparative study of sensory attributes of two antihistamine nasal sprays: olopatadine 0.6% and azelastine 0.1%.

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic, allergen-induced inflammatory reaction. Patients often differentiate intranasal treatments based on sensory attributes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensory attributes of olopatadine HCl nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) relative to azelastine HCl nasal spray 0.1% (AZE). This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, crossover comparison of OLO versus AZE in adult, symptomatic patients with at least a 2-year history of allergic rhinitis. Patients received each of the treatments separately with a washout between exposures, evaluated their sensory perceptions immediately after and 45 minutes postdosing with each treatment, and evaluated their perceptions of the two medications after administering both therapies. The mean age of the 110 patients was 42.4 years; 67% were women. OLO was superior to AZE in overall aftertaste (60.6% versus 30.3%; p = 0.0005), patient preference (62.4% versus 33.9%; p = 0.0001), and likelihood of extended use (60.9% versus 34.5%; p = 0.0004). OLO was superior to AZE in perceptions of immediate taste (1.9 U versus 3.2 U, respectively; p < 0.0001). Perceptions of additional attributes after administration of both treatments were significant and favored OLO (p < or = 0.0036 for all variables). In these assessments, respectively, 54.1 and 32.1% of patients favored the taste and smell of OLO compared with 27.5 and 11.9% who favored AZE. Both treatments were well tolerated. The sensory attributes of OLO are superior to AZE in terms of immediate taste postdosing, overall aftertaste, overall patient preference, and likelihood of use. This outcome could lead to greater patient compliance and improved treatment effect.

Onset and duration of action of nasal sprays in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients: olopatadine hydrochloride versus mometasone furoate monohydrate.

Rapid relief of symptoms should be one of the primary goals of treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR). The onset and duration of action of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray, 665 mcg (OLO; Patanese), for seasonal AR (SAR) was evaluated in this study. This study was performed to determine the onset and duration of action of OLO compared with placebo spray, with mometasone furoate monohydrate, 50 mcg (MM; Nasonex), as a reference standard. This was a single center, single-dose, randomized, double-blinded parallel-group environmental exposure chamber study. Patients were primed at two 2-hour priming visits. Eligible patients were randomized to OLO, placebo spray, or MM, 2 sprays/nostril. Allergy symptoms (sneezing, runny, itchy, and stuffy nose) were rated by patients at 16 time points during 12 hours after dosing and patient satisfaction was assessed at 4 and 12 hours postdose. Safety was assessed by a review of adverse events, cardiovascular and nasal examination parameters. Four hundred twenty-five adult patients were randomized. OLO was superior to placebo spray in reducing total nasal symptoms (TNSS) within 30 minutes after dosing and maintained superiority for at least 12 hours (p < 0.05). The onset of MM was not observed until 150 minutes postdose and was smaller in magnitude compared with OLO. OLO was superior to both placebo spray (p < 0.0001) and MM (p < 0.05) in patient satisfaction. Treatment was well-tolerated with no safety concerns. OLO is superior to placebo spray and MM in reducing allergy symptoms; OLO has a rapid onset of action and a duration of effect of at least 12 hours.

Randomized, placebo-controlled evaluation of Cerumenex and Murine earwax removal products.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 2 ceruminolytic products, Cerumenex Eardrops (Purdue Frederick Company, Norwalk, Conn) and Murine Ear Drops (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill), in subjects with partial or complete occlusion of the ear canal due to cerumen. DESIGN: Randomized, subject- and observer-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. SETTING: Corporate research clinic. PARTICIPANTS: From among 230 volunteers screened, 74 subjects (age, 22-66 [mean, 45] years) were enrolled in the study. Participants had baseline occlusion levels of mild (n = 10), moderate (n = 26), or complete (n = 38) impairment of tympanic membrane visualization. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments: Cerumenex (10% triethanolamine polypeptide oleate-condensate), Murine (6.5% carbamide peroxide), and a placebo, BSS Sterile Irrigating Solution (Alcon Laboratories Inc, Ft Worth, Tex). The test medication was instilled into 1 occluded ear for up to two 15-minute applications. Following the treatment, the subject's ear was irrigated with 50 mL of lukewarm water delivered at low pressure via a WaterPik irrigator equipped with a Grossan irrigator tip. Main Outcome Measure The degree of occlusion, measured against a previously established 4-point scale, was assessed and recorded at baseline and after each instillation and irrigation procedure. RESULTS: Neither Cerumenex nor Murine was superior to saline placebo. By the end of treatment, 29.2%, 15.4%, and 41.7% of subjects treated with Cerumenex, Murine, and placebo, respectively, experienced resolution of cerumen occlusion. These values were not statistically significantly different from one another. CONCLUSION: The currently marketed ceruminolytic products, Cerumenex and Murine, are no more effective than a saline placebo in removing earwax.

Efficacy and safety of topical ciprofloxacin/dexamethasone versus neomycin/polymyxin B/hydrocortisone for otitis externa.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin 0.3%/dexamethasone 0.1% (CIP/DEX) otic suspension with that of neomycin 0.35%/polymyxin B 10,000 IU/mL/hydrocortisone 1.0% (N/P/H) otic suspension in patients with acute otitis externa (AOE). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, observer-masked, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients were randomized to 7 days treatment with either CIP/DEX 3-4 drops twice daily or N/P/H 3-4 drops three times daily. POPULATION: Patients of either sex and older than 1 year, with a clinical diagnosis of mild, moderate, or severe AOE and intact tympanic membranes were recruited to participate. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Signs and symptoms of AOE, including ear inflammation, tenderness, edema and discharge (assessed on Days 3, 8 [End-of-Therapy] and 18 [Test-of-Cure]); microbiologic eradication (presumed or documented); and frequency of adverse events. RESULTS: Patients enrolled numbered 468. In culture-positive patients who met the inclusion criteria (N = 396), clinical cure rates at Day 18 were significantly higher with CIP/DEX than with N/P/H (90.9% vs. 83.9%; p = 0.0375), as were microbiologic eradication rates (94.7% vs. 86.0%; p = 0.0057). In addition, the clinical response was significantly better with CIP/DEX than with N/P/H at Days 3 and 18 (p = 0.0279 and p = 0.0321, respectively), as was the reduction in ear inflammation at Day 18 (p = 0.0268). Both preparations were well tolerated in pediatric and adult patients. CONCLUSIONS: 7 days treatment with CIP/DEX otic suspension administered twice daily is clinically and microbiologically superior to N/P/H otic suspension administered 3 times daily in the treatment of mild to severe AOE, and is equally well tolerated.