Nasal application of a gel formulation of XXXX ( @entity32140 ) compared with placebo and @entity9992 in the symptomatic treatment of @entity2023 .

@entity1 @entity2023 @entity809 @entity32140 @entity9691 @entity9992
A gel formulation of the antiallergic compound @entity32140 ( @entity32140 ) (Rhinaaxia (R)) has been evaluated in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group comparison with placebo gel (P) and @entity9992 (DSCG) in outpatients suffering from @entity2023 ( @entity2023 ). Nose and eye symptoms were assessed daily by the @entity1 on visual analog scales (VAS), and medical examinations were held after 1 week and at the end of the 4-week treatment. The use of rescue medications (H1-antagonist ( @entity9691 ) and soothing eye-drops (Spersallerg) was recorded as a main assessment indicator of efficacy. For the efficacy analysis, only the periods with relevant pollen concentrations (> or = 50 grains/m3) were considered. The study extended over the two pollen seasons 1989 and 1990. Of 230 included @entity1 , 190 were suitable for efficacy analysis (R = 63, P = 64, DSCG = 63). The VAS data did not reveal a difference between the treatment groups for nasal symptoms, whereas the use of @entity9691 tablets was significantly lower in the Rhinaaxia group than in either the placebo (P = 0.0001) or DSCG group (P = 0.03). The eye symptoms were significantly less severe in the Rhinaaxia group than in both placebo (P = 0.0001) and DSCG (P < 0.01) groups. In addition, the use of rescue medication was significantly higher in the placebo than in the Rhinaaxia treatment group (P = 0.0001). The incidence of local untoward effects ( @entity809 in the nose) was slightly higher in the Rhinaaxia group, while the overall tolerability assessment was similarly good in all three treatment groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
