Fenoxazoline Hydrochloride

The goal of this study was to compare the isolated and combined effects of two treatments being used to reduce nasal airflow resistance (NR): an internal nasal mechanical dilator (Nozovent; Prevancure; Sté Pouret, Paris, France) and a topical decongestant, fenoxazoline hydrochloride (Aturgyl; Synthelabo; Le Plessis-Robinson, France). The study was performed in 17 healthy subjects. NR was estimated by active posterior rhinometry at a 0.5 L/s flow under four conditions: in the basal state, with the internal nasal mechanical dilator, after treatment with fenoxazoline hydrochloride, and with both fenoxazoline hydrochloride and the mechanical dilator. The mean NR (+/- SD) decreased from 1.65+/-0.54 cm H2O/L/s in the basal state to 1.02+/-0.27 cm H2O/L/s with the mechanical dilator (p < 0.001), 1.03+/-0.47 cm H2O/L/s with fenoxazoline hydrochloride (p < 0.001), and 0.48+/-0.15 cm H2O/L/s with both the mechanical dilator and fenoxazoline hydrochloride (p < 0.001). The decreases in NR observed after using either the mechanical dilator (deltaNR(N)) or fenoxazoline hydrochloride (deltaNR(A)) were not significantly different. The decrease in NR observed with both (deltaNR(N + A)) was not significantly different from the sum deltaNR(N) + deltaNR(A): 1.16+/-0.53 cm H2O/L/s vs 1.25+/-0.63 cm H2O/L/s, respectively (p > 0.05). deltaNR(N + A) strongly correlated with deltaNR(N) + deltaNR(A): deltaNR(N + A) = 0.80 (deltaNR(N) + deltaNR(A)) + 0.15 (r = 0.96; p < 0.0001). However, the slope of the regression line of deltaNR(N + A) vs deltaNR(N) + deltaNR(A) was significantly lower than unity (p < 0.003). These results demonstrate that, although not totally additive, the effects of using the mechanical dilator and fenoxazoline hydrochloride are cumulative. Further studies that include patients with nasal obstruction would allow us to better evaluate the benefit of a therapy combining both treatments.

Twenty-five patients (5-15 years old) with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) for at least one year were treated with intranasal azelastine. The study was conducted in two separate occasions. In the first study, in a special prepared room, the patients underwent Active Anterior Rhinomanometry (AAR). Twenty minutes later, after 2 drops of saline installed in each nostril, the Total Nasal Resistance (TNR) and Total Nasal Conductance (TNC) were measured. This was followed by the intranasal application of azelastine (0.14 mg/nostril ) and the TNR and TNC were measured at 15,30,60,90 and 120 minutes. At the end of this period, a topical vasoconstrictor (fenoxazoline 0.05%) was instilled and TNR and TNC measured after 15 and 30 minutes. The patients were discharged with a prescription of intranasal azelastine, same dose, for 14 days, with diary cards. Clinical evaluation and clinical score were performed at days 3,7 and 14. There were no changes in TNR and TNC after the acute and prolonged (14 days) use of azelastine, which was observed after the use of fenoxazoline. Clinical scores (physician and patient), according to the diary card, were significant for itching and sneezing after 7 days of treatment. Intranasal azelastine is useful for the therapeutic management of PAR, mainly in those for whom nasal blockage is not important.