Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology · 2009
Pharmacokinetic characteristics and safety and tolerability of a reformulated azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray in patients with chronic rhinitis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Berger William E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intranasal azelastine hydrochloride (Astelin, Meda Pharmaceuticals, Somerset, NJ, USA) is a first-line treatment for allergic and non-allergic vasomotor rhinitis with well-established therapeutic efficacy and safety. A new formulation of azelastine nasal spray (Astepro, Meda Pharmaceuticals, Somerset, NJ, USA), with a sorbitol-based vehicle and sucralose as a taste-masking agent, was developed to reduce the bitter taste of azelastine experienced by some patients.
OBJECTIVE: Two studies were conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic parameters of this new formulation compared with the original azelastine nasal spray.
METHODS: In a pharmacokinetic study, 18 healthy volunteers received either a single dose of the new formulation or the original formulation and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined. In a 1-year safety study, patients with chronic rhinitis were randomized to the new formulation (n = 430) or the original formulation (n = 432) to assess tolerability and the potential for adverse effects on the nasal mucosa.
RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The new formulation was safe and well tolerated with long-term use and had a comparable pharmacokinetic profile to the original formulation. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events with the new formulation (48.4%) and the original formulation (49.1%) was similar, with no evidence of increased nasal irritation, nasal septal perforation, severe epistaxis or ulceration with either formulation during the 1-year study.
OBJECTIVE: Two studies were conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic parameters of this new formulation compared with the original azelastine nasal spray.
METHODS: In a pharmacokinetic study, 18 healthy volunteers received either a single dose of the new formulation or the original formulation and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined. In a 1-year safety study, patients with chronic rhinitis were randomized to the new formulation (n = 430) or the original formulation (n = 432) to assess tolerability and the potential for adverse effects on the nasal mucosa.
RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The new formulation was safe and well tolerated with long-term use and had a comparable pharmacokinetic profile to the original formulation. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events with the new formulation (48.4%) and the original formulation (49.1%) was similar, with no evidence of increased nasal irritation, nasal septal perforation, severe epistaxis or ulceration with either formulation during the 1-year study.