RESUMEN

KEY POINTS: The original manufacturer of azelastine‒fluticasone (AZ‒FL) prevented generic availability until 2020 via patent enforcement. Following generic availability of AZ‒FL, Medicare utilization increased and spending decreased. Retail prices for generic AZ‒FL remain high due to markup by manufacturers and pharmacies.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Azelastine nasal spray is effective in relieving symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this single center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study was to evaluate the time to onset of efficacy of azelastine HCl 0.15% vs placebo in participants with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: 110 participants aged 18 to 65 years were randomized to receive azelastine HCl 0.15% two sprays per nostril vs placebo nasal spray after being continuously exposed to ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure chamber (EEC). 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-minute post-dose. RESULTS: The azelastine nasal spray group had statistically significant improvement in TNSS compared with placebo 30 minutes post-dose (p=0.0002), and the effect was sustainable throughout the EEC session for all subsequent time points (p<0.0001). 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 prior findings on efficacy and improved quality of life for people suffering from allergic rhinitis, establish the important clinical role of azelastine HCl 0.15%.

RESUMEN

Previous reports on the benefits of using local therapy with azelastine in rhinitis focus on the assessment of clinical symptoms and the analysis of nasal lavage for the presence of inflammatory cells and the expression of adhesion molecules. Little attention has been paid to studies assessing the effect of azelastine on individual cytotypes of the nasal mucosa, especially epithelial cells, also in the context of inducing morphological changes. The aim of this study was the cytological analysis of swabs taken from the surface of the nasal mucosa of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic/vasomotor rhinitis (NAR/VMR) who were subjected to 4 weeks of therapy with azelastine and then comparing the obtained results with the pre-treatment condition. The technique of obtaining materials for cytoanalysis included sampling, staining of smears, microscopic analysis, and preparation of cytograms. Our studies confirmed the therapeutic benefits of azelastine in both study groups. Significant changes were demonstrated, confirming the regeneration of ciliated cells and the induction of autophagy and apoptosis in epithelial cells. Such changes indicate new mechanisms of action of azelastine, which play a significant role in restoring homeostasis in the nasal mucosa. The presented research also results in a detailed description of cytological changes in both studied rhinitis types, which complements the knowledge regarding prognostic indicators.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the subsequent increase in respiratory viral infections highlight the need for broad-spectrum antivirals to enable a quick and efficient reaction to current and emerging viral outbreaks. We previously demonstrated that the antihistamine azelastine hydrochloride (azelastine-HCl) exhibited in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, in a phase 2 clinical study, a commercial azelastine-containing nasal spray significantly reduced the viral load in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of azelastine-HCl against additional human coronaviruses, including the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant and a seasonal human coronavirus, 229E, through in vitro infection assays, with azelastine showing a comparable potency against both. Furthermore, we determined that azelastine-HCl also inhibits the replication of Respiratory syncytial virus A (RSV A) in both prophylactic and therapeutic settings. In a human 3D nasal tissue model (MucilAirTM-Pool, Epithelix), azelastine-HCl protected tissue integrity and function from the effects of infection with influenza A H1N1 and resulted in a reduced viral load soon after infection. Our results suggest that azelastine-HCl has a broad antiviral effect and can be considered a safe option against the most common respiratory viruses to prevent or treat such infections locally in the form of a nasal spray that is commonly available globally.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) is a selective, non-sedating H1 antagonist with anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties, which can be used as an alternative to intranasal corticosteroids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new formulation of 0.15% AZE compared to that of the placebo at a dosage of two sprays per nostril twice daily for 4 weeks in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). Materials and methods: A total of 581 subjects were randomized in this double-blind (DB) placebo-controlled trial (NCT00712920) that compared 0.10% (1,096 µg daily) and 0.15% AZE (1,644 µg daily) to the placebo in PAR patients. The study consisted of a 7-day single-blind placebo lead-in period and a 28-day DB treatment period. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) for the entire 28-day study period of 0.15% AZE, two sprays per nostril BID compared to the placebo. The efficacy and safety of 0.15% AZE were compared to the placebo. Results: Least square (LS) mean improvement from baseline in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) combined rTNSS was statistically significant for the 0.15% AZE group (p = 0.04) compared to the placebo group. LS mean improvement from baseline in the AM and PM combined rTNSS was 4.10 (4.26) units for 0.15% AZE and 3.81 (3.99) for 0.10% AZE. For individual symptoms, there was a statistically significant change in the LS mean (p = 0.04) improvement from baseline on the 12-h reflective assessment for the 0.15% AZE group for runny nose. Further numerical improvements were shown for itchy nose, nasal congestion, runny nose, and sneezing compared to the placebo. No deaths or serious adverse events related to the study medication were reported. Conclusion: The present formulation of 0.15% AZE is safe and effective in relieving PAR symptoms. It effectively relieves nasal and non-nasal symptoms. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00712920.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu nasal spray in comparison to commercially available azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate sprays in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). METHODS: We conducted a 14-day multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active controlled prospective clinical study in adult and adolescent patients with AR, who had moderate-to-severe symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in combined 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) (morning [AM] + afternoon [PM]). The safety profile of the study medications was assessed through the recording, reporting, and analysis of baseline medical conditions, adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and focused nasal examination. Three hundred patients per treatment group were randomized, which led to a total sample size estimation of 900 patients. RESULTS: MP-AzeFlu group showed significantly higher symptom reduction for the entire 2-week treatment period in rTNSS when compared with the AZE group (LS mean difference: - 1.96; 95% CI: - 2.53, - 1.39; p < 0.0001), or the FLU group (LS mean difference: - 0.98; 95% CI: - 1.55, - 0.41; p = 0.0007). The results of adult RQLQ showed improvement in QoL in all treatment groups. Except for dysgeusia (bitter taste) that was reported by more patients (13 [4.3%]) in the MP-AzeFlu group, the incidence of all other TEAEs in the MP-AzeFlu group was comparable or even lower than in other treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: MP-AzeFlu, when administered as one spray per nostril twice daily for 14 days, alleviated AR symptoms in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe AR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03599791, Registered June 29, 2018, retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03599791 .

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a symptomatic condition of the nose, caused by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the nasal membranes. Allergic rhinitis is further split into two categories, based on the duration of symptoms: intermittent (IAR) or persistent (PER) disease. Oral or topical antihistamines and topical nasal steroids are the most popular and efficient treatments for allergic rhinitis. METHODS: The present prospective comparative study was done between December 2021 to November 2022, with 64 subjects of PER divided into groups A and B. Group A patients received Fluticasone propionate (50 mcg) combined with Azelastine (140 mcg) nasal spray, whereas Group B patients received standalone Fluticasone propionate (50 mcg) nasal spray. RESULTS: In both groups, the difference in mean TSS between the beginning and end of the 4-week study period was statistically significant (p for both < 0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, Group A had a TSS of 2.02 ± 0.83 and Group B was at 3.80 ± 1.49; the difference between them was statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: According to results obtained from the current study, while both fluticasone propionate with azelastine nasal spray and standalone fluticasone propionate nasal spray are widely used for control of symptoms in PER, the former offers better results with significant reduction of symptoms when compared to the latter.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objective: Two studies (Study I and Study II) were conducted in healthy Chinese volunteers to confirm that there was no pharmacokinetic drug interaction between AZE and FLU in MP-AzeFlu. The secondary objective was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic parameters of MP-AzeFlu compared with the commercially available mono-components. Methods: Both studies were a randomized, open-label, three-period, six-sequence, single-dose cross-over trial (William's design) conducted at Beijing Hospital (Beijing, China) in September and October of 2019 in 30 healthy adult male and female volunteers. The natural log transformed parameters: AUC0-tlast, AUC0-∞ and Cmax were analyzed. Results: The comparison of PK parameters between MP-AzeFlu and Aze (commercially available) showed that the LS mean ratios (90% CI) values for, AUC0-tlast, AUC 0-∞ and Cmax were 100.29% (94.31-106.66%), 100.76% (94.60-107.32%) and 93.14% (81.47-106.48%). The comparison of PK parameters between MP-AzeFlu and Flu (commercially available) for the bioavailability evaluation showed that the LS mean ratios (90% CI) values for, AUC0-tlast, AUC 0-∞ and Cmax were 83.48% (69.81-99.82%), 100.19% (87.34-114.94%) and 81.91% (68.50-97.95%). Conclusion: The study results confirm that neither the FLU or the AZE component in the combination product (MP-AzeFlu), nor the existing qualitative and quantitative differences in the formulation between the currently marketed AZE and FLU mono-product, display significant potential to impact the systemic exposure of AZE or FLU in Chinese subjects.

RESUMEN

Introduction. Azelastine hydrochloride, a second-generation histamine H1 receptor (H1R) antagonist, exhibits anti-chlamydial effects against Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) in HeLa cells (genital infection model).Hypothesis/Gap Statement. Non-antibiotic pharmaceutical interactions with CT are an understudied field and the anti-chlamydial effects of azelastine are a potential interaction requiring further elucidation.Aim. To explore the underlying anti-chlamydial mechanisms of azelastine.Methodology. We assessed the specificity of azelastine for the chlamydial species and host cell type, the timing of azelastine application and whether the anti-chlamydial effects could be reproduced with different H1R-modulating compounds.Results. We observed similar anti-chlamydial azelastine effects for Chlamydia muridarum as well as for an ocular CT strain in human conjunctival epithelial cells (ocular infection model). Pre-incubating host cells with azelastine before infection mildly reduced chlamydial inclusion numbers and infectivity. Incubation of cells with azelastine initiated concomitantly with the chlamydial infection, or initiated several hours post-infection, reduced inclusion size, number and infectivity, and altered chlamydial morphology. These effects were strongest when azelastine was added shortly after or with the infection. Azelastine effects were not alleviated by increased concentrations of culture medium nutrients. Additionally, we did not observe anti-chlamydial effects when incubating cultures either with a different H1R antagonist or agonist, indicating that azelastine effects are probably H1R-independent.Conclusion. Accordingly, we conclude that azelastine anti-chlamydial effects are not restricted to a specific chlamydial species, strain or culture model, and are probably not mediated by H1R antagonism. Thus, it appears likely that off-target mechanisms of azelastine may explain our observations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Simple, direct, rapid, and sensitive HPLC and spectrophotometric methods were established for simultaneous estimation of a novel combination of budesonide and azelastine (BUD/AZL) in their laboratory-prepared mixture and dosage form according to the medicinally recommended ratio 1:4.28. Budesonide is an important inhalation corticosteroid that plays a vital role in the inhibition of COVID-19 replication and cytokine production. The first chromatographic method was created for the simultaneous estimation of BUD epimers in the presence of AZL with excellent efficiency in a relatively short chromatographic run (< 9 min). The separation of BUD epimers with AZL was carried out on a C18 column using acetonitrile: phosphate buffer of pH 3.5 adjusted by 0.2 M orthophosphoric acid (40:60, v/v) as a mobile phase, UV detection at 230 nm and a flow rate of regulated at 2 mL/min. Besides, three spectrophotometric methods were applied for the simultaneous determination of the provided mixture adopting zero order, first order derivative, and ratio first derivative approaches. The Zero-order spectrophotometry was used for the determination of AZL in presence of BUD, where BUD shows no absorbance at 290 nm. The first derivative amplitude at 265 nm (1D265) (zero-crossing of AZL) and the ratio of first derivative amplitudes at 270 nm (1DD270) using 10.0 µg mL-1 AZL as divisor was chosen for the simultaneous determination of BUD in the presence of AZL in the binary mixture. The proposed methods were found to be rectilinear in the concentration range of (0.4-40.0 µg mL-1) and (0.05-40.0 µg mL-1) for BUD and AZL, respectively in the HPLC method. Whereas the concentration range for AZL in the zero-order method was (1.0-35.0 µg mL-1) and for BUD in the first derivative and ratio derivative method was (6.0-20.0 µg mL-1). Validation of the suggested approaches according to the ICH criteria was performed. Furthermore, to ensure the proposed approaches' greenness, The AGREE and GAPI metrics were utilized, and the afforded results revealed an excellent greenness of the proposed approaches.

RESUMEN

Background: Many allergic rhinitis (AR) patients have moderate/severe persistent disease. MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®) comprises intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a novel formulation delivered in a single device. Objective: This prospective, noninterventional study assessed the effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu (one spray/nostril twice daily; azelastine hydrochloride = 548 µg; fluticasone propionate = 200 µg) on relieving AR symptom severity. Methods: A visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 mm [not at all bothersome] to 100 mm [very bothersome]) was used during a 42-day MP-AzeFlu treatment period by 161 persistent AR (PER) patients in routine clinical practice in Sweden. Patients also assessed their sleep quality. Results: VAS scores decreased from baseline during the treatment period and patients achieved a clinically relevant VAS score cutoff before Day 7, with 89.3% reporting well or partly controlled symptoms on Day 1. VAS score decreased from 61.4 ± 22.4 mm (baseline) to 32.1 ± 24.6 mm on Day 28 and 26.1 ± 24.3 mm on Day 42 (both p < 0.0001), an overall reduction from baseline on Day 42 of 38.1 ± 28.2 mm. The percentage of patients with very good/good sleep quality increased from 3.7%/28.6% on Day 0 to 16.5%/51.5% on Day 42. Conclusion: MP-AzeFlu provides effective, rapid control of PER assessed by VAS in a real-world clinical setting in Sweden. Symptom improvement was observed at Day 1, sustained for 42 days, and associated with improved sleep quality. MP-AzeFlu significantly improved the QoL of the patients and was well tolerated.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Adenoid hypertrophy (AH) is one of the common childhood diseases. Surgical and non-surgical treatment of AH in children is planned according to the severity of symptoms and associated complications. In recent years, treatment methods with intranasal sprays have been reported quite frequently in uncomplicated cases. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a new combination of azelastine - fluticasone (AZE-FLU) (137mcg azelastine and 50mcg fluticasone) nasal spray in children with uncomplicated AH. METHODS: Sixty-five children diagnosed with AH were included in the study. The mean age of the children was 7.42 ± 2.26 (4-13 years). The cohort consisted of 29 males and 36 females. All children were evaluated clinically and endoscopically. AZE-FLU nasal spray was applied to both nostrils twice a day for three months. Adenoid/choana ratio and symptom scores were evaluated before treatment and at the end of the 12th week. RESULTS: At the end of 24 weeks of AZE-FLU application, there was a statistically significant decrease in both adenoid/choana ratio and symptom scores. While the initial adenoid/choana (A/C) score was 3.57 ± 0.58, it decreased to 1.74 ± 0.61 following treatment. A dramatic decrease in total symptom scores was observed. The total symptom score average was 15.63 ± 1.28 before treatment, while it was 2.31 ± 1.4 after the treatment with the difference being statistically significant (P < .01). CONCLUSION: In this study, the effectiveness of AZE-FLU nasal spray on AH was investigated for the first time. This treatment provides an effective alternative to the surgical approach in children with uncomplicated adenoid hypertrophy. Using this protocol, 96% of patients were removed from the surgery list. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: is IV.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) is frequent in children with adenoid hypertrophy (AH). Although the most common treatment of AH is surgical removal of adenoid tissue, numerous studies have reported the efficacy of intranasal steroids. The effects of the intranasal steroid and azelastine combination on AH and ETD have not been reported before. In this study, we tried to determine the effects of 3-month intranasal Azelastine-Fluticasone dipropionate combination (Aze-Flu) treatment in children with ETD and AH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 children who had open mouth sleep, snoring, and sleep apnea and were diagnosed with AH and ETD participated in this study. The mean age was 7.73 ± 2.37 (4-14 years). The rates of adenoid tissue hypertrophy and choanal occlusion were evaluated using a rigid pediatric nasal endoscope and reassessed after 3 months of Aze-Flu nasal spray treatment. The function of the Eustachian tube (ET) was evaluated before and after medical treatment using the Eustachian tube score, the Eustachian dysfunction test-7 (ETS-7) and tubomanometry (TMM). RESULTS: The results were evaluated in 100 patients with AH and ETD. The adenoid tissue to choana rate was 82% before treatment and decreased to 37% after treatment. The ETS-7 test score was 6.36 before treatment and increased to 9.72 at the end of 3 months. Both the regression of the adenoid tissue and the improvement in the Eustachian function scores were statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AH significantly increases the frequency of ETD. In this study, it was observed that Aze-Flu treatment was significantly effective in both regression of the adenoid tissue and Eustachian tube dysfunction. We believe that it can be applied as an initial therapy in children with AH and associated ETD.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Allergic rhinitis is a highly prevalent, allergen-induced disease. Intranasal corticosteroids are currently the first-line therapy for these patients. It is uncertain whether intranasal antihistamines have comparable efficacy. This study compares effects of Azelastine and Fluticasone nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis. Prospective comparative study including 240 patients with allergic rhinitis was conducted with 120 each in fluticasone and azelastine group. Nasal sprays were given for period of three months along with an oral antihistamine. Follow up was done after three months. Pre and post treatment symptom assessment were done using Total nasal symptom score. The median TNSS in pre and post treatment of group A (fluticasone) is 10(4) and 1(3) which shows statistical significance with p value < 0.001. Median TNSS in pre and post treatment of group B (azelastine) is 9(4) and 1(2) which shows statistical significance with p value < 0.001. The median TNSS in pre and post treatment value between Group A and B shows no statistically significant difference between two groups with p value 0.56 and 0.06 respectively. Intranasal azelastine and fluticasone had comparable efficacy in symptom control in patients with allergic rhinitis. Azelastine due to its lesser side effects, can be safely used in children, patients with glaucoma and cataract. Azelastine may be considered as a safer replacement to fluticasone for long term use in patients with allergic rhinitis. A larger multicentric study with a bigger sample size may be required to confirm the efficacy and safety profile of azelastine nasal spray.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The histamine-1 receptor antagonist azelastine was recently found to impact SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics in a Phase 2 clinical trial (CARVIN). Thus, we investigated the relationship between intranasal azelastine administrations and viral load, as well as symptom severity in COVID-19 patients and analyzed the impact of covariates using non-linear mixed-effects modeling. For this, we developed a pharmacokinetic (PK) model for the oral and intranasal administration of azelastine. A one-compartment model with parallel absorption after intranasal administration described the PK best, covering both the intranasal and the gastro-intestinal absorption pathways. For virus kinetic and symptoms modeling, viral load and symptom records were gathered from the CARVIN study that included data of 82 COVID-19 patients receiving placebo or intranasal azelastine. The effect of azelastine on viral load was described by a dose-effect model targeting the virus elimination rate. An extension of the model revealed a relationship between COVID-19 symptoms severity and the number of infected cells. The analysis revealed that the intranasal administration of azelastine led to a faster decline in viral load and symptoms severity compared to placebo. Moreover, older patients showed a slower decline in viral load compared to younger patients and male patients experienced higher peak viral loads than females.

RESUMEN

Nasal drug combination is a very useful therapy for elevating the symptoms of various respiratory diseases as seasonal allergic rhinitis and infectious respiratory illness as pandemic COVID-19. One of best combination is Fluticasone propionate (FLU) and Azelastine (AZE). In this study, different UV spectrophotometric and chemometric methods have been applied for quantitative analysis of FLU and AZE without previous separation in their pure form, laboratory prepared mixture and pharmaceutical dosage form. Absorbance subtraction (AS) and Amplitude modulation (AM) spectrophotometric methods have been applied for the simultaneous determination of the cited drugs. Besides, three well-known chemometric techniques; namely, classical least squares (CLS), partial least square (PLS), and principal component regression (PCR) have been applied for the simultaneous analysis of both drugs by using spectrophotometric data. To be friendly to the environment, the greenness of the proposed methods was taken into consideration and evaluation of the analytical methods' greenness was done using two green analytical chemistry metrics known as, Analytical Greenness Calculator and an eco-scale scoring method. They indicated that the methods were environmentally friendly in relation to numerous approaches like instrument, reagents, and safety of waste. Analyzing laboratory prepared mixtures including different quantities of FLU and AZE, as well as their marketed dose form, was used to assess the selectivity of the applied methods. The validity of the developed methods was investigated by applying the standard addition technique. The resulting data were statistically compared to those obtained by the official or reported HPLC methods for FLU and AZE, which revealed no significant difference in accuracy and precision at p = 0.05.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background and purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose challenges, especially with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants that are associated with higher infectivity and/or compromised protection afforded by the current vaccines. There is a high demand for additional preventive and therapeutic strategies effective against this changing virus. Repurposing of approved or clinically tested drugs can provide an immediate solution. Experimental Approach: We applied a novel computational approach to search among approved and commercially available drugs. Antiviral activity of a predicted drug, azelastine, was tested in vitro in SARS-CoV-2 infection assays with Vero E6 cells, Vero cells stably overexpressing the human TMPRSS2 and ACE2 proteins as well as on reconstituted human nasal tissue using the predominant variant circulating in Europe in summer 2020, B.1.177 (D614G variant), and its emerging variants of concern; B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta) and B.1.617.2 (delta) variants. The effect of azelastine on viral replication was assessed by quantification of viral genomes by droplet digital PCR or qPCR. Key results: The computational approach identified major drug families, such as anti-infective, anti-inflammatory, anti-hypertensive, antihistamine, and neuroactive drugs. Based on its attractive safety profile and availability in nasal formulation, azelastine, a histamine 1 receptor-blocker was selected for experimental testing. Azelastine reduced the virus-induced cytopathic effect and SARS-CoV-2 copy numbers both in preventive and treatment settings upon infection of Vero cells with an EC50 of 2.2-6.5 µM. Comparable potency was observed with the alpha, beta and delta variants. Furthermore, five-fold dilution (containing 0.02% azelastine) of the commercially available nasal spray formulation was highly potent in inhibiting viral propagation in reconstituted human nasal tissue. Conclusion and Implications: Azelastine, an antihistamine available as nasal sprays developed against allergic rhinitis may be considered as a topical prevention or treatment of nasal colonization by SARS-CoV-2. A Phase 2 efficacy indicator study with azelastine-containing nasal spray that was designed based on the findings reported here has been concluded recently, confirming accelerated viral clearance in SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects.