The interleukin-4/interleukin-13 pathway in type 2 inflammation in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is predominantly a type 2 inflammatory disease associated with type 2 (T2) cell responses and epithelial barrier, mucociliary, and olfactory dysfunction. The inflammatory cytokines interleukin (IL)-4, IL-13, and IL-5 are key mediators driving and perpetuating type 2 inflammation. The inflammatory responses driven by these cytokines include the recruitment and activation of eosinophils, basophils, mast cells, goblet cells, M2 macrophages, and B cells. The activation of these immune cells results in a range of pathologic effects including immunoglobulin E production, an increase in the number of smooth muscle cells within the nasal mucosa and a reduction in their contractility, increased deposition of fibrinogen, mucus hyperproduction, and local edema. The cytokine-driven structural changes include nasal polyp formation and nasal epithelial tissue remodeling, which perpetuate barrier dysfunction. Type 2 inflammation may also alter the availability or function of olfactory sensory neurons contributing to loss of sense of smell. Targeting these key cytokine pathways has emerged as an effective approach for the treatment of type 2 inflammatory airway diseases, and a number of biologic agents are now available or in development for CRSwNP. In this review, we provide an overview of the inflammatory pathways involved in CRSwNP and describe how targeting key drivers of type 2 inflammation is an effective therapeutic option for patients.

Efficacy of EDS-FLU for Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Two Randomized Controlled Trials (ReOpen1 and ReOpen2).

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a prevalent inflammatory disease. No medications are Food and Drug Administration-approved for the most common form, CRS without nasal polyps (also called "chronic sinusitis"). Novel biomechanics of the exhalation delivery system deliver fluticasone (EDS-FLU; XHANCE) to sinonasal areas above the inferior turbinate, especially sinus drainage pathways not reached by standard-delivery nasal sprays. OBJECTIVE: Assess EDS-FLU efficacy for CRS (irrespective of nasal polyps). METHODS: Two randomized, EDS-placebo-controlled trials in adults with CRS irrespective of polyps (ReOpen1) or exclusively without polyps (ReOpen2) were conducted at 120 sites in 13 countries. Patients received EDS-FLU 1 or 2 sprays/nostril, or EDS-placebo, twice daily for 24 weeks. Coprimary measures were composite symptom score through week 4 and ethmoid/maxillary sinus percent opacification by computed tomography at week 24. RESULTS: ReOpen1 (N = 332) composite symptom score least-squares mean change for EDS-FLU 1 or 2 sprays/nostril versus EDS-placebo was -1.58 and -1.60 versus -0.62 (P < .001, P < .001); ReOpen2 (N = 223), -1.54 and -1.74 versus -0.81 (P = .011, P = .001). In ReOpen1, sinus opacification least-squares mean change for EDS-FLU 1 or 2 sprays/nostril versus EDS-placebo was -5.58 and -6.20 versus -1.60 (P = .045, P = .018), and in ReOpen2, -7.00 and -5.14 versus +1.19 (P < .001, P = .009). Acute disease exacerbations were reduced by 56% to 66% with EDS-FLU versus EDS-placebo (P = .001). There were significant, and similar magnitude, symptom reductions in patients using standard-delivery nasal steroid products just before entering the study (P < .001). Adverse events were similar to standard-delivery intranasal steroids. CONCLUSIONS: EDS-FLU is the first nonsurgical treatment demonstrated to reduce symptoms, intrasinus opacification, and exacerbations in replicate randomized clinical trials in CRS, regardless of polyp status.

The Effect of EDS-FLU on Objective and Patient-Reported Subjective Outcomes for Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) delivers medication high and deep in the nasal passages and has been shown to reduce nasal polyp (NP) grade, an objective measure of efficacy, and to yield clinically meaningful improvements on subjective measures of symptoms in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). OBJECTIVES: To better characterize EDS-FLU treatment, we analyzed responder rates for four outcome measures used in the EDS-FLU pivotal trials, in the overall study population as well as in subgroups of patients with or without prior sinus surgery or prior use of a standard intranasal corticosteroid spray (INS). METHODS: Data were pooled from two randomized, 24-week (16-week, double-blind + 8-week, open-label), placebo-controlled studies (NAVIGATE I and II). Results for patients receiving EDS-FLU (186 µg [n = 161] or 372 µg [n = 160]) or EDS-placebo (n = 161) twice daily during the double-blind phase are described. Responder criteria included NP grade reduction (≥1-point), 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) reduction (>12-points), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) (much/very much improved), and congestion score improvement (>0.5-points). RESULTS: More patients in the EDS-FLU group responded to each of the four responder criteria compared with EDS-placebo. More patients receiving EDS-FLU responded to ≥ 1 criterion compared with EDS-placebo at week 4 (82.7% and 60.4%, respectively) and week 16 (95.7% and 80.3%, respectively). Patients responded similarly irrespective of prior sinus surgery or prior INS use. Patient-reported outcome measures showed earlier responses than NP scores. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful improvements were seen across multiple response criteria with EDS-FLU, suggesting that the broad treatment effect of EDS-FLU includes objective reduction in polyp grade and improvements in several patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NAVIGATE I: NCT01622569 and NAVIGATE II: NCT01624662).

Evaluation of the ocular safety associated with the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone.

Background: Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis. Although INCS are generally considered safe and effective, there is a concern that chronic use may lead to ocular adverse effects. Objective: To assess ocular safety of the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone propionate (EDS-FLU) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Methods: Ocular safety data were collected during two randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies with open-label extensions. Ophthalmologists performed tonometry, slit-lamp, and visual acuity examinations to assess intraocular pressure (IOP) and the presence of cataracts. Ocular examinations were conducted before double-blind treatment, at the end of the 16-week double-blind phase, and at the end of the 8-week open-label phase. The results of pooled data from patients who received EDS-FLU 186 µg (n = 160), EDS-FLU 372 µg (n = 161), and EDS-placebo (n = 161) twice daily are reported here. Results: At the end of the double-blind phase, six patients developed elevated average IOP > 21 mm Hg: two patients (1.2%) in the EDS-placebo group, three patients (1.9%) in the EDS-FLU 186 µg group, and one patient (0.6%) in the EDS-FLU 372 µg group. In addition, 6 of 482 patients developed cataracts: 3 patients in the EDS-placebo group, 2 patients in the EDS-FLU 186 µg group, and 1 patient in the EDS-FLU 372 µg group. At the end of the open-label phase, two additional patients showed IOP > 21 mm Hg and two additional patients developed cataracts. Conclusion: No increased risk of elevated IOP was detected with EDS-FLU; the rate of cataract development was similar to EDS-placebo and to that reported with other INCS.Clinical trials NCT01622569 and NCT01624662, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Primary glycogen-rich clear cell squamous cell carcinoma of the mandibular gingiva.

Clear cell squamous cell carcinoma (CCSCC) is a rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma, first reported by Kuo, who described 6 cases of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin of the head and neck. CCSCC is composed of cells with clear cytoplasm, which Kuo attributed to the accumulation of intracellular fluid and not the presence of glycogen, lipid, or mucin. This case describes a 59-year-old woman who presented with an exophytic, hemorrhagic lesion on the posterior mandibular gingiva of 2 months' duration. Histologic examination revealed dysplastic stratified squamous epithelium showing transition to an infiltrating tumor composed of islands of epithelial cells with clear cytoplasm. The cytoplasm stained positive with periodic acid Schiff but was diastase labile. Mucicarmine stains were negative for intracytoplasmic mucin. This is the first reported case describing primary glycogen-rich CCSCC of the mandibular gingiva.

Efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray administered once daily in patients with allergy to Texas mountain cedar pollen.

BACKGROUND: A previous study with azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) demonstrated that increasing the azelastine concentration from 0.1% to 0.15% allowed for once-daily dosing without increasing the incidence of adverse effects. This study evaluated the efficacy of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray administered once daily for treating symptoms of SAR. METHODS: In this 14-day, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with moderate-to-severe SAR were randomized to azelastine 0.15% (n = 251) or placebo (n = 255), both at a dosage of 2 sprays/nostril once daily. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in the 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS). Key secondary variables were change from baseline in 24-hour instantaneous TNSS, to establish the dosing interval, and change from baseline in the Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS). RESULTS: The mean improvement (3.57) and percentage improvement (19.3%) in 12-hour reflective TNSS was significant (p < 0.012) with azelastine 0.15% compared to placebo (2.14 and 11.4%, respectively). The mean improvement in 24-hour instantaneous TNSS was also significant (p < 0.001) for azelastine 0.15% compared to placebo, indicating efficacy with once-daily dosing. The overall improvement and percentage improvement in TOSS was significant (p ≤ 0.012) with azelastine 0.15% (2.21 and 16.7%, respectively) compared to placebo (1.28 and 6.0%, respectively). The overall score for the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) was significantly (p < 0.001) improved from baseline in the azelastine group compared with the placebo group. Nasal discomfort (3.6%) and bitter taste (2.4%) were the most common adverse events. There were no reports of somnolence with azelastine. CONCLUSION: Azelastine 0.15% was effective and well tolerated with once-daily dosing. Azelastine 0.15% nasal spray significantly improved a complex of eye symptoms compared to placebo.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of azelastine and fluticasone in a single nasal spray delivery device.

BACKGROUND: A proof-of-concept study suggested that combination therapy with commercial azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray significantly improved nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with either agent alone. OBJECTIVE: To compare an azelastine-fluticasone combination nasal spray administered in a single-delivery device with a commercially available azelastine nasal spray and fluticasone nasal spray. METHODS: This 14-day, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was conducted during the Texas mountain cedar season. After a 5-day placebo lead-in, 610 patients with moderate-to-severe nasal symptoms were randomized to treatment with (1) azelastine nasal spray, (2) fluticasone nasal spray, (3) combination azelastine and fluticasone nasal spray, or (4) placebo nasal spray. All treatments were given as 1 spray per nostril twice daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, and sneezing. RESULTS: All 3 active groups were statistically superior (P

Bioavailability of oral carisoprodol 250 and 350 mg and metabolism to meprobamate: A single-dose crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Carisoprodol is a skeletal muscle relaxant indicated for use in the treatment of acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. Two randomized, controlled clinical trials have reported that carisoprodol 250 mg QID was equally effective as and better tolerated than carisoprodol 350 mg QID. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the current study was to determine the relative bioavailability of carisoprodol and its metabolite, meprobamate, with singledose administration of 250- and 350-mg tablets. A secondary objective of the study was to determine whether lowering the carisoprodol dose would decrease plasma meprobamate concentrations. METHODS: This single-dose, randomized, open-label, crossover study enrolled healthy volunteers. Each dose was administered with water in the morning; after a 7-day washout, subjects received the alternate dose. Blood samples were drawn at prespecified times over a 48-hour period. For tolerability assessment, subjects underwent a physical examination, including 12-lead ECG. RESULTS: A total of 24 subjects were enrolled (12 men, 12 women; mean age, 22.8 years). The dose-adjusted AUC0-∞ values for carisoprodol were 5.29 µg/mL/h with the 250-mg tablet and 5.75 µg/mL/h with the 350-mg tablet (relative bioavailability, 92%). The mean (SD) Cmax values of carisoprodol and meprobamate after administration of the 250-mg carisoprodol tablet were 1.24 (0.49) and 1.84 (0.31) µg/mL, respectively, compared with 1.78 (0.97) and 2.46 (0.47) µg/mL with the 350-mg tablet. AUC0-∞ was dose proportional, and the apparent t1/2 values at the terminal phase were 1.74 hours with the 250-mg tablet and 1.96 hours with the 350-mg tablet. There were 3 mild adverse events considered possibly treatment related (weakness, dizziness, and drowsiness); these were reported in 2 subjects with 350-mg carisoprodol. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study in healthy fasting subjects, the exposure to carisoprodol and meprobamate was dose proportional between the single 250- and 350-mg doses. Both doses were generally well tolerated.

Randomized, double-blind trial of carisoprodol 250 mg compared with placebo and carisoprodol 350 mg for the treatment of low back spasm.

BACKGROUND: Carisoprodol, a centrally active skeletal muscle relaxant, is widely used for the treatment of acute, painful musculoskeletal disorders. When administered at a dose of 350 mg four times daily, carisoprodol demonstrated significant clinical benefit in its early clinical development trials; however, some unfavorable side effects, such as drowsiness and dizziness, were reported. Recently, research was conducted to determine if a lower dose of carisoprodol would retain efficacy but improve tolerability compared to the higher 350-mg dose. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this multicenter study was to compare the efficacy and safety of carisoprodol 250-mg tablets four times daily to 350-mg tablets four times daily and to placebo in patients with acute, painful musculoskeletal spasm of the lower back. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 1-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicenter trial, patients 18 to 65 years of age with moderate to severe back spasm were randomly assigned to treatment with carisoprodol 250-mg tablets (n = 264), 350-mg tablets (n = 273), or matching placebo tablets (n = 269) three times daily and at bedtime. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The coprimary efficacy variables were patient-rated relief from starting backache and patient-rated global impression of change assessed on treatment day 3. RESULTS: The carisoprodol 250-mg regimen was significantly more effective than placebo as assessed by both patient-rated relief from starting backache (p = 0.0001) and patient-rated global impression of change (p = 0.0046). There were no significant differences between the 250-mg and 350-mg dosages for the coprimary efficacy endpoints, and patients improved with or without sedation. Fewer than 1% of patients in the carisoprodol 250-mg group discontinued prematurely because of treatment-emergent adverse events, and no patient discontinued because of drowsiness. CONCLUSIONS: When administered three times daily and at bedtime, carisoprodol 250 mg was as effective as 350 mg three times daily and at bedtime with a lower incidence of adverse events and fewer discontinuations of therapy due to adverse events. Patients improved whether or not they reported sedation as an adverse event.

Efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray and azelastine 0.10% nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Azelastine is a second-generation antihistamine approved for treatment of allergic rhinitis. This randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% and azelastine 0.10% nasal spray at a dosage of 2 sprays/nostril twice daily in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). In total, 526 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to treatment with 2 sprays/nostril twice daily of azelastine 0.15%, azelastine 0.10%, or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS; A.M. and P.M. combined), consisting of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, itchy nose, and sneezing. After 2 weeks, the mean improvement and percentage improvement in the 12-hour reflective TNSS were significant (p < 0.001) with azelastine 0.15% and azelastine 0.10% compared with placebo. In a retrospective analysis, there was a statistical difference (p = 0.047) in the mean improvement versus placebo in the 12-hour reflective TNSS with azelastine 0.15% compared with azelastine 0.10%. Onset of action with azelastine 0.15% was within 30 minutes. Bitter taste was the most common adverse event with both azelastine 0.15% and azelastine 0.10% (8.4% and 9.4% of patients, respectively). Somnolence was reported by 1.7% of patients treated with azelastine 0.15%, 0.6% of patients treated with azelastine 0.10%, and 0.6% of patients treated with placebo. Azelastine 0.15% nasal spray at 2 sprays/nostril twice daily significantly improved the nasal symptoms associated with SAR with an onset of action within 30 minutes and was well tolerated.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of reformulated azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Azelastine nasal spray is a topical antihistamine with a distinctive taste that may be objectionable to some patients. The primary objectives of this clinical trial were (1) to determine if a reformulated azelastine nasal spray (Astepro) with sucralose as a taste-masking agent provides comparable efficacy to the original formulation (Astelin) and (2) to evaluate dose-response relationships between groups. METHODS: Eight hundred thirty-five patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomized to six treatment groups: (1) original azelastine nasal spray, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (2) reformulated azelastine, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (3) placebo, 1 spray/ nostril b.i.d.; (4) original azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d., (5) reformulated, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.; and (6) placebo, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to day 14 in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) consisting of runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion. RESULTS: Original azelastine nasal spray and the reformulated spray produced comparable improvements in the TNSS at both dosages. There was a dose-related difference in TNSS comparing the 1- and 2-spray dosages. The percentage changes from baseline in the TNSS in the 2-sprays/nostril dosage groups were 27.9% (p<0.001) with the reformulated nasal spray, 23.5% (p<0.01) with the original formulation, and 15.4% with placebo. The incidence of bitter taste was 7% with the reformulated spray and 8% with the original at the 2-sprays/nostril dosage. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed efficacy both with original azelastine nasal spray and with the reformulated nasal spray and a clear dose-response difference between the 1- and 2-spray dosages.

Efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray administered once daily in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Azelastine nasal spray is commercially available as a 0.1% w/v solution and is recommended for twice-daily dosing. Increasing the azelastine concentration to 0.15% may be effective with once-daily dosing without increasing the incidence of adverse events. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray at a dosage of 2 sprays/nostril once daily. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in subjects with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) during the 2007/2008 Texas Mountain Cedar season. In total, 536 subjects were randomized to 2 sprays/nostril once daily (A.M.) of azelastine 0.15% or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in a 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), consisting of nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, and sneezing. The key secondary variable was change from baseline in 24-hour instantaneous TNSS, which determines the duration of action and effective dosing interval. After 2 weeks, the mean improvement in 12-hour reflective TNSS and percentage improvement in 12-hour reflective TNSS were significant (p < 0.001) with azelastine 0.15% (19%) compared with placebo (10%). The improvement in 24-hour instantaneous TNSS also was significant (p < 0.001) for azelastine 0.15% compared with placebo, supporting efficacy with once-daily dosing. All individual TNSS symptoms were significantly (p < 0.01) improved with azelastine 0.15% compared with placebo. With the exception of bitter taste (4.5%) and nasal discomfort (4.5%), adverse events with azelastine 0.15% were reported with an incidence similar to placebo. Azelastine 0.15% nasal spray was effective and well tolerated in subjects with SAR with once-daily dosing.

Combination therapy with azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there are no published studies that evaluated the efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid, although anecdotal reports of the use of these agents in combination are common. OBJECTIVE: To determine if greater efficacy could be achieved with the intranasal antihistamine azelastine and the intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate used concurrently compared with the efficacy of each agent alone. METHODS: This randomized, 2-week, multicenter, double-blind trial was conducted during the Texas mountain cedar season. After a 5-day placebo lead-in period, 151 patients with moderate to severe nasal symptoms were randomized to treatment with the following: (1) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily; (2) fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily; or (3) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, plus fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of sneezing, itchy nose, runny nose, and nasal congestion. RESULTS: All 3 groups had statistically significant (P < .001) improvements from their baseline TNSS after 2 weeks of treatment. The TNSS improved 27.1% with fluticasone nasal spray, 24.8% with azelastine nasal spray, and 37.9% with the 2 agents in combination (P < .05 vs either agent alone). All 3 treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The significant improvement in the TNSS with combination therapy relative to the individual agents alone is in contrast to previously published studies that found no advantage with an oral antihistamine and an intranasal corticosteroid in combination. Azelastine nasal spray and fluticasone nasal spray in combination may provide a substantial therapeutic benefit for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with therapy with either agent alone.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of carisoprodol 250-mg tablets in the treatment of acute lower-back spasm.

PURPOSE: The objective of this placebo-controlled trial was to determine the efficacy and safety of carisoprodol (Soma, MedPointe Pharmaceuticals, Somerset, NJ, USA), a centrally acting skeletal muscle relaxant used to treat acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions, at a dosage of 250 mg three times daily and at bedtime in patients with acute, painful muscle spasm of the lower back. METHODS: This was a 7-day, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Qualified patients were randomly assigned to treatment with carisoprodol 250-mg tablets (n = 277) or matching placebo tablets (n = 285). The coprimary efficacy endpoints were patient-rated global impression of change and patient-rated relief from starting backache scored on a 5-point rating scale. The primary analysis was on study Day 3. Four secondary endpoints were also assessed: (1) the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), (2) time to symptom improvement, (3) patient-rated medication helpfulness, and (4) physician assessment of range of motion. RESULTS: Carisoprodol was significantly more effective than placebo for patient-rated global impression of change (2.24 vs. 1.70; p < 0.0001) and patient-rated relief from starting backache (1.83 vs. 1.12; p < 0.0001). Patients experienced clinical improvement with or without sedation. Onset of moderate or marked improvement was 3 days with carisoprodol compared to 6 days with placebo (p < 0.0001). No patient discontinued treatment with carisoprodol because of drowsiness, and there were no serious adverse events or clinically significant effects on laboratory values or vital signs. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients with acute muscle spasm of the lower back had significantly greater and more rapid relief from starting backache, and had improved functional status, as measured by the RMDQ, during treatment with carisoprodol 250-mg tablets compared to placebo. Patients experienced clinical improvement with or without sedation.

Onset of action of azelastine nasal spray compared with mometasone nasal spray and placebo in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis evaluated in an environmental exposure chamber.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the onset of action of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray compared with placebo and an intranasal steroid, mometasone furoate, in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: Subjects with a history of SAR and symptomatic while exposed to ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure chamber (EEC) were randomized to azelastine nasal spray (n=150), mometasone nasal spray (n=150), or placebo (n=150) and recorded total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), consisting of sneezing, nasal pruritus, rhinorrhea, and congestion, during an 8-hour study period. RESULTS: Azelastine nasal spray showed a statistically significant improvement in the TNSS at 15 minutes compared with placebo. The effect was durable at each time point during the 8-hour study. Azelastine nasal spray also was significantly more effective than mometasone at each time point. CONCLUSION: Azelastine nasal spray has a rapid (15 minute) onset of action. Azelastine nasal spray was superior to both placebo and imometasone nasal spray in reducing nasal symptoms of SAR occurring within 8 hours after an allergen challenge.