Azelastine vs. olopatadine in the topical treatment of allergic rhinitis – an analysis of selected clinical evidence and practical recommendations Review article

Article Sidebar

PDF (Język Polski)


Published: Oct 31, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24292/01.AP.213901225
Keywords:
allergy, allergic rhinitis, therapy, azelastine, olopatadine

Main Article Content

Przemysław Talik
Wydział Farmaceutyczny, Uniwersytet Jagielloński – Collegium Medicum
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5624-9302

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare two second-generation intranasal antihistamines – azelastine and olopatadine – with regard to their efficacy, onset of action, and active substance stability under physiological conditions in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Both agents provide a rapid onset of action (azelastine: 15 min; olopatadine: 30 min) and effective control of nasal and ocular symptoms, with azelastine achieving therapeutic effect more quickly. Azelastine is distinguished by a broader pharmacological spectrum of activity, which also makes it effective in non-allergic rhinitis, where olopatadine has not demonstrated confirmed efficacy in placebo-controlled trials. Azelastine exhibits high chemical stability across a wide pH range, whereas olopatadine shows marked pH-dependent solubility – crystallizing within the pH range of 5.0–5.5 – which necessitates maintaining an acidic formulation pH (3.5–3.95 for solutions; 3.3–4.1 for suspensions with mometasone) to ensure complete solubility of its salt form.


The rapid onset of action and the stability of the active substance under physiological conditions (including the slightly acidic pH of the nasal mucosa, 5.5–6.5) constitute important criteria differentiating azelastine and olopatadine.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Talik, P. (2025). Azelastine vs. olopatadine in the topical treatment of allergic rhinitis – an analysis of selected clinical evidence and practical recommendations. Alergoprofil, 21(4), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.24292/01.AP.213901225
Issue
Vol 21 No 4 (2025)
Section
THERAPY
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright: ? Medical Education sp. z o.o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.

Address reprint requests to: Medical Education, Marcin Kuźma (marcin.kuzma@mededu.pl)

References

1. Dykewicz MS, Wallace DV, Amrol DJ et al. Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020; 146(4): 721-67.
2. Wallace DV, Dykewicz MS, Bernstein DI et al. The diagnosis and management of rhinitis: an updated practice parameter. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008; 122(2 suppl): S1-S84.
3. Bernstein JA, Bernstein JS, Makol R et al. Allergic Rhinitis: A Review. JAMA. 2024; 331(10): 866-77.
4. Wheatley LM, Togias A. Allergic Rhinitis. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 456-63.
5. Rapiejko P. Unikatowe rozwiązanie w leczeniu alergicznego nieżytu nosa. Alergoprofil. 2014; 10(1): 5-9.
6. Klimek L, Sperl A, Becker S et al. Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2019; 20(1): 83-9.
7. Seidman MD, Gurgel RK, Lin SY et al. Clinical Practice Guideline. OTO Journal. 2015; 51: S1-S43.
8. Bernstein JA. Azelastine hydrochloride: a review of pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and tolerability. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007; 23: 2441-52.
9. Singh U, Bernstein JA, Haar L et al. Azelastine desensitization of transient receptor potential vanilloid 1: a potential mechanism explaining its therapeutic effect in nonallergic rhinitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2014; 28: 215-24.
10. Smith PK, Collins J. Olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray protects from vasomotor challenge in patients with severe vasomotor rhinitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011; 25(4): e149-52.
11. Gonzalez-Estrada A, Reddy K, Dimov V et al. Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2017; 18(11): 1137-43.
12. Shah SR, Nayak A, Ratner P et al. Effects of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study in adolescents and adults. Clin Ther. 2009; 31: 99-107.
13. Ellis AK, Zhu Y, Steacy LM et al. A four-way, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to determine the efficacy and speed of azelastine nasal spray, versus loratadine, and cetirizine in adult subjects with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2013; 9: 16.
14. Patel P, D’Andrea C, Sacks HJ. Onset of action of azelastine nasal spray compared with mometasone nasal spray and placebo in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis evaluated in an environmental exposure chamber. Am J Rhinol. 2007; 21: 499.
15. Patel P, Roland PS, Marple BF et al. An assessment of the onset and duration of action of olopatadine nasal spray. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007; 137: 918-24.
16. Patel D, Garadi R, Brubaker M et al. Onset and duration of action of nasal sprays in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients: olopatadine hydrochloride versus mometasone furoate monohydrate. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2007; 28: 592-9.
17. England RJ, Homer JJ, Knight LC et al. Nasal pH measurement: a reliable and repeatable parameter. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1999; 24(1): 67-8.
18. Lou YP, Lundberg JM. Inhibition of Low pH Evoked Activation of Airway Sensory Nerves by Capsazepine, a Novel Capsaicin- Receptor Antagonist. Biochem. Biophys Res Commun. 1992; 189(1): 537-44.
19. Shusterman D, Avila PC. Real-Time Monitoring of Nasal Mucosal pH During Carbon Dioxide Stimulation: Implications for Stimulus Dynamics. Chem Senses. 2003; 28(7): 595-601.
20. Hummel T, Kraetsch HG, Pauli E et al. Responses to Nasal Irritation Obtained From the Human Nasal Mucosa. Rhinology. 1998; 36(4): 168-72.
21. Mandolesi D, Schiavon P, Ioannou A et al. Chronic Non-Allergic Rhinitis With Neutrophils Is Associated With Higher Acid Exposure Time: A pH-impedance Monitoring Study. Dig Liver Dis. 2020; 52(4): 414-9.
22. Contencin P, Narcy P. Nasopharyngeal pH Monitoring in Infants and Children With Chronic Rhinopharyngitis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1991; 22(3): 249-56.
23. Javorská Z, Zeleník K, Lukáčová K et al. Mulberry Posterior Inferior Nasal Turbinate Is Associated With a Lower Pharyngeal pH Environment. Laryngoscope. 2024; 134(1): 62-8.
24. Mantione G, Cavelier G, Rodriguez A et al. Clinical Findings, Feasibility, and Patient Tolerance of Nasopharyngeal Dx-pH System for Detecting Nasopharyngeal Reflux Disease. J Voice. 2025: S0892-1997(25)00172-9.
25. Cho DY, Hajighasemi M, Hwang PH et al. Proton Secretion in Freshly Excised Sinonasal Mucosa From Asthma and Sinusitis Patients. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009; 23(6): e10-3.
26. El-Shaheny RN, Yamada K. Stability study of the antihistamine drug azelastine HCl along with a kinetic investigation and the identification of new degradation products. Anal Sci. 2014; 30(6): 691-7.
27. Gumieniczek A, Lejwoda K, Data N. Chemical Stability Study of H Antihistaminic Drugs From the First and the Second Generations, Diphenhydramine, Azelastine and Bepotastine, in Pure APIs and in the Presence of Two Excipients, Citric Acid and Polyvinyl Alcohol. Molecules. 2022; 27(23): 8322.
28. Olopatadine formulation for topical nasal administartion. U.S. Patent No. US 7,977,376 B2 Jul. 12, 2011.
29. Treatment of allergic rhinitis using a combination of mometasone and olopatadine. U.S. Patent No. US 2024/0156840 A1 May 16, 2024.