PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R Aurich

Publications and source records attributed to R Aurich.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

[Synthesis of substituted 6-phenylpyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidines with potential adenosin-A2A antagonistic activity].

Substituted pyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidines were prepared by reaction of methyl- or phenylhydrazine with pyrimidine derivatives containing a methylthio or chlorine substituent as nucleofuge. Using a methylthio-6-imino-1,3-thiazine as starting material instead of a methylthiopyrimidine the conversion with phenylhydrazine could already be achieved under mild conditions thus leading first to the formation of a hydrazinopyrimidine. The affinity of the products against the human adenosine A2A receptor was determined.

Adenosine A2 Receptor Antagonists↗
PubMed1994

Comparative efficacy of azelastine nasal spray and terfenadine in seasonal and perennial rhinitis.

The efficacy and tolerability of intranasal azelastine (0.14 mg/nostril twice daily) and oral terfenadine (60 mg twice daily) were compared under double-blind conditions in two 6-week, multicenter, parallel-group studies, including 167 patients suffering from seasonal and 52 patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis. In both studies, patients were symptomatic on entry and showed significant improvement on both treatments within the first 8 d of therapy, showing little further improvement with continued treatment. Symptoms most pronounced on entry--nasal itching, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal obstruction--responded best to treatment (response rates 80-90%). Objective signs such as mucosal swelling and conjunctivitis improved in a manner parallel to symptoms. In perennial rhinitis, azelastine showed a trend to a superior relief of rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction, whereas terfenadine showed a trend toward better control of sneezing and nasal itchiness. No clinically relevant or statistically significant differences between treatments could be identified. The incidence of adverse effects of possible causal relationship to therapy was low. The most frequent effects in azelastine-treated patients were related to application site disorders, e.g., nasal irritation. Results indicate that with the dose used azelastine nasal spray is an effective treatment for both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed1993

Investigation of long-term efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

The long-term efficacy and tolerability of azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8) nasal spray (0.14 mg/nostril b.i.d.) was investigated in patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis. 185 patients entered an initial 6 months' study; 35 of them continued in a follow-up for a further 30 to 60 weeks' treatment. Azelastine both attenuated the severity and reduced the incidence of rhinitis symptoms, with the highest rate of improvement during the first month with some additional improvement during the following months. The most marked effects were on those symptoms which were initially most severe: nasal obstruction, mucosal swelling, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching. Signs of rhinitis identified by rhinoscopic examination improved in parallel to symptoms. 84.1% of patients reported 'good' or 'very good' efficacy as did 94.3% during the follow-up. Approximately 96% of patients rated the tolerability of treatment as 'very good' or 'good'. The incidence of adverse events of possibly causal relationship to azelastine treatment was low during the first 6 months. The most frequent events were the experience of application site reactions (e.g. burning) and bitter or unpleasant taste, specific to azelastine. No unwanted effects were reported by patients continuing treatment. In addition, results of nasal biopsies indicate that with the dose used azelastine nasal spray is a safe drug for long-term treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed1993

Efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis compared to placebo and budesonide.

The efficacy and safety of a new antiallergic drug, intranasal azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8), in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis was investigated in a 16 patient double-blind comparison with placebo and another 36 patient open comparison with budesonide (CAS 51333-22-3). Efficacy was assessed in terms of 13 signs and symptoms of allergic rhinitis and tolerability on the basis of spontaneously reported adverse events. In the first study, compared to placebo a one week's treatment with azelastine resulted in substantial relief of sneezing (p = 0.009), nasal itching (p = 0.009), swelling of the nasal mucosa (p = 0.067) and rhinorrhoea (p = 0.262) in patients having the above symptoms at baseline of at least moderate to severe intensity. According to the judgement of the supervising physician, 7/8 azelastine-treated patients but none receiving placebo responded well to therapy (p = 0.001). In the second study a two weeks' treatment with intranasal azelastine was found not to differ significantly from budesonide 67% of patients showed improvement in principal signs of rhinitis after one week's therapy irrespective of treatment. Nasal symptoms, including nasal obstruction, were most markedly improved by both treatments. Azelastine, but not budesonide, also relieved ocular symptoms associated with rhinitis. Adverse events did not occur more frequently under azelastine than under placebo treatment and were often of uncertain relationship to treatment.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed1993

Intranasal treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. Comparison of azelastine nasal spray and budesonide nasal aerosol.

The efficacy and tolerability of azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8) nasal spray (0.14 mg/nostril b.i.d.) and budesonide (CAS 51333-22-3) nasal aerosol (0.05 mg/nostril b.i.d.) were compared in a 6-week, multicentre, parallel group study of 193 patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis. Total rhinitis symptoms complex (TSC) scores derived from 10 rhinitis symptoms improved during treatment by a mean of 11.4 +/- 6.8 with azelastine and 10.8 +/- 6.4 with budesonide. Response rates, defined as a decrease in TSC of at least 50% at the end of therapy, was 79% with azelastine and 73% with budesonide. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with respect to either target variable. Objective measurements of nasal flow rate showed a return to normal values during the 6-week therapy. Signs of rhinitis identified by rhinoscopic examination improved in parallel to symptoms. Both medications were well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events of possibly causal relationship to therapy was low. The most frequent event in azelastine treated patients was the experience of an "unpleasant" taste or smell. Occasional epistaxis occurred in both treatment groups but more frequently with budesonide. Results indicate that with the dose used azelastine nasal spray is an effective treatment for perennial allergic rhinitis comparable to that of budesonide nasal aerosol.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed1990

Dose related protective effect of azelastine on histamine induced bronchoconstriction in extrinsic asthma.

The effect of single oral doses of the antiallergic agent azelastine hydrochloride (1.1, 2.2 and 4.4 mg) was compared to placebo on airway response to histamine challenge in 12 asymptomatic extrinsic asthmatics with proven bronchial hyperresponsiveness to inhaled histamine in a randomized double-blind crossover trial. All doses of azelastine resulted in a significant protection compared to placebo. The effects of 2.2 and 4.4 mg were equivalent and superior compared to 1.1 mg. A naturally small but statistically significant bronchodilator effect was observed 4 h after the two higher doses of azelastine. Tiredness was reported by two patients, the symptom occurred following each placebo and the active drug.

Airway Resistance↗
PubMed1989

[Creatine kinase risk groups in acute myocardial infarct].

The individual valuation of risks in patients with acute myocardial infarction on the basis of a monitoring of the creatine kinase (CK) is made evident as relevant to practice for the basic medical care. Thereby a classification of risk groups on the basis of CKmax (less than or equal to 23; greater than 23 less than or equal to 40; greater than 40 less than or equal to 60; greater than 60 mumol/l.s) is controlled. The measurement of the ejection fraction global was performed also according to risk groups (greater than 60; greater than 45 less than or equal to 60; greater than 30 less than or equal to 45; less than or equal to 30%). Parallel to this a classification of the patients according to the electrocardiogram (non-Q-wave, Q-wave) was retrospectively performed. The anamnestic information Re-AMI was individually taken into consideration for the evaluation of CKmax. In 2.5% of the patients in comparison to the ejection fraction the risk group classification of CKmax was globally carried out into a higher group without an an principal incorrect evaluation of the risk (slight, middle, high) in the first AMI. No patient with middle or high risk in the first AMI was incorrectly grouped according to the risk group CKmax or ejection fraction global.

Cardiac Output↗
PubMed1989

Duration of the effect of a single dose of azelastine on histamine-induced bronchoconstriction.

We studied the duration of the protective effect of azelastine against histamine-induced bronchoconstriction in six subjects with asymptomatic asthma. The study was performed in two periods of five consecutive days each. After a histamine inhalation test, we randomly administered either placebo or a single oral dose of 8.8 mg azelastine in a double-blind crossover fashion. Histamine challenges were repeated 5 hours after ingestion and at 1 PM on the following four days. The geometric means of the dose of histamine (in cumulative breath units [cbu]) necessary to increase specific airway resistance by 100% as compared with baseline (PD100SRaw) were 8.7 and 8.5 cbu before placebo and azelastine, respectively. Placebo did not significantly influence PD100SRaw within 99 hours after treatment. Five and 27 hours after azelastine, PD100SRaw increased to 178.2 and 46.7 cbu, respectively (p less than 0.05). Two patients showed a highly significant protection against the airway effect of histamine even 99 hours after ingestion (p less than 0.01). These data demonstrate a variable duration of the antihistaminic property of azelastine. The prolonged therapeutic effect in some patients may be beneficial in the timing of medication intervals.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1989

The inhibitory actions of azelastine hydrochloride on the early and late bronchoconstrictor responses to inhaled allergen in atopic asthma.

We have examined the effect of azelastine hydrochloride, 8.8 mg, on the early and late responses to inhaled allergen in a group of 12 atopic subjects with asthma. On two separate days, 3 weeks apart, patients were administered either oral azelastine, 8.8 mg, or matched placebo. Four hours later they inhaled via nebulizer, a dose of allergen (grass pollen or Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus) that had previously been demonstrated to produce a 25% fall in FEV1. Plasma-histamine concentrations and FEV1 levels were measured at intervals during the subsequent 8 hours. After placebo, allergen inhalation produced rapid bronchoconstriction in all subjects with a maximum mean fall in FEV1 at 30 minutes of 22.8 +/- 3.4% from the postsaline baseline value. Five subjects also developed a late bronchoconstriction response with a fall in FEV1 of greater than 15% from postsaline baseline value between 2 and 8 hours after challenge. Azelastine reduced the bronchoconstrictor response during the first 10 minutes and produced a maximum mean fall at 30 minutes of 21.2 +/- 4.4% from the postsaline baseline value. Azelastine had a marked inhibitory effect, reducing the maximum mean fall from 23.9 +/- 6.3% to 9.6 +/- 3.9% from the postsaline baseline value. Analysis of the area under the FEV1 response time-course curves revealed that azelastine reduced the early response (first 2 hours) by 32.5% (p less than 0.05) (all subjects) and reduced the late response (2 to 8 hours) by 70.2% (p less than 0.05) (n = 5). Azelastine had no significant inhibitory effect on the early increase in plasma histamine.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed1988

The in vivo potency and selectivity of azelastine as an H1 histamine-receptor antagonist in human airways and skin.

Azelastine is a novel histamine H1 antagonist with putative antileukotriene activity in guinea pigs. With three different doses of oral azelastine, we have performed a dose-response study to determine its protective effect on the airways against histamine-induced bronchoconstriction in 12 patients with mild, atopic asthma. On 4 separate days, patients undertook standardized inhalation-challenge tests with increasing concentrations of histamine (0.03 to 32 mg/ml) 4 hours after placebo or azelastine, 4.4, 8.8, and 17.6 mg, administered double blind and in random order. On 2 additional days, patients underwent methacholine challenge tests after placebo or azelastine, 17.6 mg. Baseline FEV1 between treatment days and 4 hours after placebo and azelastine did not change significantly. The three doses of azelastine, 4.4, 8.8, and 17.6 mg, increased the concentration of histamine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) from 0.16 mg/ml geometric mean (GM) after placebo to 1.98 (p less than 0.01), 8.8 (p less than 0.01), and 8.1 (p less than 0.01) mg/ml, respectively. GM potency ratios derived from the PC20 values obtained for each patient indicated that the three increasing doses of azelastine displaced the histamine dose-response curve to the right by factors of 12.8, 54.4, and 50.2. Azelastine had no effect on the airway response to methacholine with GM PC20 values of 0.16 and 0.19 after placebo and azelastine, 17.6 mg. Azelastine is a potent H1 histamine-receptor antagonist on human airways in vivo without demonstrable anticholinergic effect.

Administration, Inhalation↗
PubMed1988

A study of the clinical efficacy of azelastine in patients with extrinsic asthma, and its effect on airway responsiveness.

1. The effect of 4.4 mg azelastine administered orally on airway responsiveness, skin prick testing, daily peak expiratory flow rates and symptoms of asthma was compared with placebo in a 7 week double-blind, parallel group study of 24 patients with extrinsic asthma. The study was in two parts: a 2 week assessment period, during which all patients received placebo tablets but recorded daily peak flow rates (PEFRs) and symptoms, preceding the 7 week double-blind comparison. 2. Azelastine, 4.4 mg, significantly decreased airway responsiveness to histamine compared with placebo both after a single dose (P less than 0.001), and following 7 weeks continuous treatment (P less than 0.02). Airway responsiveness to methacholine was not altered by administration of azelastine compared with placebo. 3. Skin prick test weal diameters to both allergen and histamine were significantly reduced after both a single dose and following 7 weeks continuous therapy treatment with azelastine. 4. There was a significant improvement in both the mean of the morning and the evening peak flow rates recorded during the last week compared with the first week of the study in the group receiving 4.4 mg of azelastine twice daily compared with placebo. Scores for wheeze were significantly reduced during the final 3 weeks of the study in patients receiving azelastine compared both with those receiving placebo and with the first week of the study (P less than 0.05, P less than 0.01). Consumption of inhaled bronchodilators fell significantly during the study in the group receiving azelastine therapy (P less than 0.05); no such fall occurred in the placebo treated patients. 5. A bitter metallic taste was reported by 58% of patients who received azelastine therapy.

Adult↗