Onset of efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride 0.15% nasal spray for allergic rhinitis in an environmental exposure chamber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Azelastine nasal spray is effective in relieving symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the time to onset of efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride (HCl) 0.15% vs placebo in participants with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: A total of 110 participants aged 18 to 65 years were randomized to receive azelastine HCl 0.15% 2 sprays per nostril vs placebo nasal spray after being continuously exposed to ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure chamber. Symptoms were evaluated subjectively by the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) scale. The primary efficacy parameter was the time to onset of efficacy of azelastine as measured by the change from baseline in TNSS 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 minutes post-dose. RESULTS: The azelastine nasal spray group had statistically significant improvement in TNSS compared with placebo 30 minutes post-dose (P = .0002), and the effect was sustainable throughout the environmental exposure chamber session for all subsequent time points (P < .0001). Adverse events were mild, including bitter taste, nasal discomfort, epistaxis, sinusitis, and nausea. No major adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSION: Azelastine HCl 0.15% nasal spray relieves nasal symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis and has a fast onset of action within 30 minutes. The overall safety profile of azelastine has also been proven to be safe. These results, along with previous findings on efficacy and improved quality of life for people with allergic rhinitis, establish the important clinical role of azelastine HCl 0.15%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04264637.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".