Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111
Online ISSN 1827-1928
Chicharro J. L. 1, Lucia A. 1, Vaquero A. F. 2, Pérez M. 2
1 Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid;
2 Departamento de Ciencias Morfológicas y Fisiología, Universidad Europea de Madrid
Background. The effect of the treatment of allergic rhinitis with azelastine on physiological indicators of aerobic performance such as V.O2max and ventilatory threshold (VT) were evaluated. The clinical efficacy of azelastine was also established.
Methods. Experimental design: fifteen physically active males with allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis were selected as subjects (experimental group, EXP). Fifteen physically active, healthy subjects served as controls. Subjects performed a maximal incremental exercise test on a bicycle ergometer (ramp protocol) before and after a 5-day treatment period. During the 5 days, EXP group subjects were treated with azelastine (intranasal dose of 0.56 mg/day). The following variables were recorded before and after treatment: power output (W), HR (beats.min-1), V.O2 (ml.kg-1.min-1), minute ventilation (.VE, in 1.min-1), and oxygen pulse (V.O2.HR-1, in ml.beat -1). Blood lactate concentrations (mmol.l-1) were also determined using capillary blood samples (25 µl).
Results. No significant difference was found between pre- and post-trial variables in control subjects. However, peak HR values were lower in EXP subjects after treatment with azelastine (190±6 beats.min-1 pre-treatment vs 186±56 beats.min-1 post-treatment; p<0.05). In addition, .VE values at the exercise intensity corresponding to VT were higher in EXP after treatment (54.7±12.8 l.min-1 pre-treatment vs 60.2±14.6 l.min-1 post-treatment, p<0.05).
Conclusions. These findings suggest that the intranasal administration of azelastine used for the treatment of allergic symptoms of the upper respiratory tract in physically active subjects, does not seem to adversely affect maximal aerobic capacity or submaximal aerobic performance.