Real-life effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu in Irish patients with persistent allergic rhinitis, assessed by visual analogue scale and endoscopy

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

The Use of Azelastine Hydrochloride/Fluticasone Propionate in the Management of Allergic Rhinitis in Asia: A Review

The incidence of allergic rhinitis (AR) in Asia and the world is steadily rising. Patients experience incomplete symptom relief despite existing treatment options, which warrants the need for new therapeutic regimes. Azelastine hydrochloride/fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu), a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate has been indicated in the treatment of AR. The current review discusses the effects of MP-AzeFlu versus conventional therapies in achieving superior clinical improvement with a very rapid onset of action (5 minutes). The superiority of MP-AzeFlu in offering complete symptom control with sustained relief in patients with AR compared to the existing therapeutic options is also discussed. MP-AzeFlu has been shown to improve the quality of life for patients with AR, thereby enhancing patient adherence to therapy and establishing its preference for the treatment of AR. Currently, the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines recommend the use of a combination of intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines as first-line treatment in patients with persistent AR with visual analog scores ≥5 or when prior treatment with single agents has been ineffective. Widely published data on the efficacy and safety of its prolonged use in adults and children have validated that effective treatment of AR can be achieved with MP-AzeFlu.

An Observational Study to Determine the Real-Life Effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu® in Austrian Patients with Persistent Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Many patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) have moderate-to-severe persistent AR. Meda Pharma's AzeFlu (MP-AzeFlu®) is an intranasal AR treatment comprising a novel formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single device.

METHODS

This prospective observational study of 214 adults and adolescents in Austria with moderate-to-severe persistent AR assessed the effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu (one spray/nostril twice daily; daily doses: azelastine hydrochloride 548 μg; and fluticasone propionate 200 μg) for AR control in clinical practice using the visual analog scale. Symptom severity was reported on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42. Patient demographics, AR phenotype, allergen sensitization, symptomatology, AR treatments in the previous year, and the reason for the MP-AzeFlu prescription were recorded.

RESULTS

MP-AzeFlu treatment was associated with a rapid and statistically significant reduction in the visual analog scale score from baseline to each timepoint measured, including day 1 (all p < 0.0001). Mean (standard deviation) visual analog scale score was 53.5 mm (26.3) at baseline, 25.3 mm (21.0) on day 28, and 19.6 mm (17.4) on day 42, a mean overall reduction from baseline of 41.4 (23.9) mm for completers. Results were consistent irrespective of patient age, gender, severity, or traditional AR phenotype. Prior to MP-AzeFlu prescription, congestion was considered the most bothersome symptom. The majority of patients reported using at least two AR therapies in the past year, including oral antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and intranasal antihistamines.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients in Austria live with uncontrolled persistent AR despite treatment. MP-AzeFlu provides effective and rapid control of persistent AR in a real-world Austrian setting.

MP-AzeFlu Improves the Quality-of-Life of Patients with Allergic Rhinitis

Purpose

Patients with poorly controlled allergic rhinitis (AR) experience nasal symptoms, sleep disturbances, activity impairment, and decreased quality-of-life (QoL). MP-AzeFlu is safe and effective for moderate-to-severe seasonal and perennial AR, but its impact on QoL requires investigation in the real-world, especially among phenotypes of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated AR. This subanalysis of an observational study evaluated response to MP-AzeFlu via assessment of sleep quality and trouble with daily activities.

Patients and Methods

This multicenter, prospective, non-interventional, real-life study included a convenience sample of patients with a history of moderate-to-severe AR presenting with acute AR symptoms (visual analog scale [VAS] ≥50 mm). Over approximately 14 days of treatment with MP-AzeFlu (137 µg azelastine HCL and 50 µg fluticasone propionate administered via single 0.137-mL spray in each nostril twice daily), changes in sleep quality and trouble with daily work, school, social, and outdoor activities were evaluated using a VAS for the entire study population and for four subgroups based on IgE response phenotype. VAS scores ranged from “not at all troubled” (0 mm) to “extremely troubled” (100 mm).

Results

Following MP-AzeFlu treatment, mean VAS scores for sleep quality impairment and work or school impairment decreased from 55.2 mm at baseline to 22.1 mm and 57.6 mm at baseline to 23.0 mm, respectively, after ~14 days. Similar results were observed for mean VAS scores for impairment of social activity (55.1 mm to 22.4 mm) and impairment of outdoor activity (64.4 mm to 25.0 mm). For all VAS scores, results were similar across populations, regardless of phenotype of IgE-mediated disease, comorbidity, age, and sex.

Conclusion

MP-AzeFlu relieves symptoms and improves patient-reported QoL, illustrated by better sleep quality and less impairment of work, school, social, and outdoor activities after 14 days. The QoL benefits of MP-AzeFlu were consistent regardless of the phenotype of IgE-mediated disease.

Registration

Clinical Trial Registration (CTR) Number: EUPAS23075. Trial Register Date: March 12, 2018. First patient visit; Last patient visit: February 2018; April 2019.

Real-life effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu in Irish patients with persistent allergic rhinitis, assessed by visual analogue scale and endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Most allergic rhinitis (AR) patients have moderate-to-severe, persistent disease. Meda Pharma's AzeFlu (MP-AzeFlu) combines intranasal azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in a novel formulation in a single device to treat AR. This prospective, noninterventional study sought to assess the effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu (one spray/nostril twice daily; 548 µg AZE/200 µg FP daily dose) in relieving AR symptom severity.

METHODS

A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used prior to MP-AzeFlu treatment on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 by 53 persistent AR (PER) patients seen in routine clinical practice in Ireland. An endoscopy was performed on days 0 and 28, and symptoms of edema, discharge, and redness were scored on a three-point scale (for both nostrils).

RESULTS

Patients using MP-AzeFlu experienced rapid VAS score reduction from 73.4 mm (standard deviation [SD], 20.3) at Day 0 to 31.5 mm (SD, 25.0) at day 28 (P < 0.0001) to 28.1 mm (SD, 24.1) at day 42 (P < 0.0001), a 45.3-mm reduction. On average, patients achieved a clinically relevant VAS score cutoff of 50 mm before Day 7. Total endoscopy score decreased from 7.5 mm (SD, 3.1) at baseline to 3.5 mm (SD, 2.5) at Day 28. The incidence of severe edema on endoscopy decreased from 53.1% at baseline to 3.8% at Day 28. A similar reduction in the incidence of thick/mucousy discharge (from 28.3% to 4.8%) and severe redness (from 34.9% to 0%) was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

MP-AzeFlu provided effective, rapid control of PER as assessed by VAS in a real-world clinical setting in Ireland. Symptom improvement was observed at Day 1, sustained for 42 days, and associated with improved mucosal appearance after 28 days. These results confirm the safety of MP-AzeFlu and exceed the efficacy demonstrated in phase 3 clinical studies for controlling AR in PER patients.