Long-term, randomized safety study of MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system) in subjects with chronic rhinitis

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.

Nonallergic Rhinopathy: A Comprehensive Review of Classification, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Chronic nonallergic rhinitis syndromes encompass various conditions, of which vasomotor rhinitis is the most common form, representing approximately 80% of patients, also referred to as nonallergic rhinopathy (NAR), nasal hyperreactivity, neurogenic rhinitis, or idiopathic rhinitis. Expert panels have recommended replacing vasomotor rhinitis terminology because it is more descriptive of this condition that is characterized by symptoms triggered by chemical irritants and weather changes through chemosensors, mechanosensors, thermosensors, and/or osmosensors activated through different transient receptor potential calcium ion channels. Elucidating the specific role of transient receptor potential vanilloid 1, triggered by capsaicin, has been an important advancement in better understanding the pathophysiology of NAR because it has now been shown that downregulation of transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 receptors by several therapeutic compounds provides symptomatic relief for this condition. The classification of NAR is further complicated by its association with allergic rhinitis referred to as mixed rhinitis, which involves both immunoglobulin E-mediated and neurogenic mechanistic pathways. Comorbidities associated with NAR, including rhinosinusitis, headaches, asthma, chronic cough, and sleep disturbances, underscore the need for comprehensive management. Treatment options for NAR include environmental interventions, pharmacotherapy, and in refractory cases, surgical options, emphasizing the need for a tailored approach for each patient. Thus, it is extremely important to accurately diagnose NAR because inappropriate therapies lead to poor clinical outcomes and unnecessary health care and economic burdens for these patients. This review provides a comprehensive overview of NAR subtypes, focusing on classification, diagnosis, and treatment approaches for NAR.

A Clinical Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of MP-AzeFlu Nasal Spray in Comparison to Commercially Available Azelastine Hydrochloride and Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Sprays in Chinese Volunteers with Allergic Rhinitis

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 .

The Comparative Bioavailability of Fluticasone and Azelastine Delivered as a Single Fixed Dose Combination (MP-AzeFlu) in Comparison to Two Different Formulations of Azelastine and Fluticasone Propionate Following Intranasal Administration in Healthy Chinese Volunteers

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: AUC_0-tlast, AUC_0-∞ and C_max 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, AUC_0-tlast, AUC _0-∞ and C_max 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, AUC_0-tlast, AUC _0-∞ and C_max 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.

Real-Life Effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®) in Swedish Patients with Persistent Allergic Rhinitis, Assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale

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.

Impact of Inhaled and Intranasal Corticosteroids Exposure on the Risk of Ocular Hypertension and Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Starting in 2019, the Global Initiative for Asthma recommended the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as part of reliever combination therapy in patients 12 years of age and older, thus dramatically increasing the population exposure to ICS. ICS and intranasal corticosteroids (INS) are commonly used for a variety of respiratory diseases. Chronic steroid use is a well-known risk factor for elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma regardless of route of administration. This study aimed to determine the reported risk of glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OHT) and IOP elevation associated with ICS and INS use.

Materials and Methods

Systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and Web of Science databases from the date of inception identified studies that assess ocular outcomes related to glaucoma in ICS and INS users. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were done independently in duplicate. Meta-analysis assessed glaucoma incidence, OHT incidence and IOP changes in patients using ICS and INS. Study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Study protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020190241.

Results

Qualitative and quantitative analyses included 65 and 41 studies, respectively. Incidence of glaucoma was not significantly different in either ICS or INS users compared to control over 45,457 person-years of follow-up. Similarly, no significant difference in OHT incidence over 4431 person-years was detected. In studies reporting IOP, a significantly higher IOP was observed (0.69 mmHg) in 857 ICS or INS users compared to 615 controls. However, no significant increase in IOP was observed within ICS or INS users when compared to pre-treatment baseline.

Conclusion

Overall, use of ICS or INS does not significantly increase the incidence of glaucoma or OHT. However, ICS and INS patients had significantly higher IOPs compared to untreated patients. Awareness of these findings is significant in care of patients with additional risk factors for glaucoma.

Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.

METHODS

Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.

CONCLUSION

After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.

Prevalence, comorbidities, diagnosis, and treatment of nonallergic rhinitis: real-world comparison with allergic rhinitis

Rhinitis is among the most common respiratory diseases in children. Nonallergic rhinitis, which involves nasal symptoms without evidence of systemic allergic inflammation or infection, is a heterogeneous entity with diverse manifestations and intensities. Nonallergic rhinitis accounts for 16%-89% of the chronic rhinitis cases, affecting 1%-50% (median 10%) of the total pediatric population. The clinical course of nonallergic rhinitis is generally rather mild and less likely to be associated with allergic comorbidities than allergic rhinitis. Here, we aimed to estimate the rate of coexisting comorbidities of nonallergic rhinitis. Nonallergic rhinitis is more prevalent during the first 2 years of life; however, its underestimation for children with atopic tendencies is likely due to low positive rates of specific allergic tests during early childhood. Local allergic rhinitis is a recently noted phenotype with rates similar to those in adults (median, 44%; range, 4%-67%), among patients previously diagnosed with nonallergic rhinitis. Idiopathic rhinitis, a subtype of nonallergic rhinitis, has been poorly studied in children, and its rates are known to be lower than those in adults. The prevalence of nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome is even lower. A correlation between nonallergic rhinitis and pollution has been suggested owing to the recent increase in nonallergic rhinitis rates in highly developing regions such as some Asian countries, but many aspects remain unknown. Conventional treatments include antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and recent treatments include combination of intranasal corticosteroids with azelastin or decongestants. Here we review the prevalence, diagnosis, comorbidities, and treatment recommendations for nonallergic rhinitis versus allergic rhinitis in children.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Towards definitive management of allergic rhinitis: best use of new and established therapies

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa impacting up to 25% of Canadians. The standard of care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account patient preferences, the severity of the disease, and most essentially involves a shared decision-making process between patient and provider.

BODY

Since their introduction in the 1940s, antihistamines (AHs) have been the most utilized class of medications for the treatment of AR. First-generation AHs are associated with adverse central nervous system (CNS) and anticholinergic side effects. On the market in the 1980s, newer generation AHs have improved safety and efficacy. Compared to antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) have significantly greater efficacy but longer onset of action. Intranasal AH and INCS combinations offer a single medication option that offers broader disease coverage and faster symptom control. However, cost and twice-per-day dosing remain a major limitation. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying option and can be provided through subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes. While SCIT has been the definitive management option for many years, SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) have also been proven to be safe and efficacious.

CONCLUSION

There is a range of available treatment options for AR that reflect the varying disease length and severity. For mild to moderate AR, newer generation AHs should be the first-line treatment, while INCS are mainstay treatments for moderate to severe AR. In patients who do not respond to INCS, a combination of intranasal AH/INCS (AZE/FP) should be considered, assuming that cost is not a limiting factor. While SCIT remains the option with the most available allergens that can be targeted, it has the potential for severe systemic adverse effects and requires weekly visits for administration during the first 4 to 6 months. SLIT-T is a newer approach that provides the ease of being self-administered and presents a reduced risk for systemic reactions. In any case, standard care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account disease severity and patient preferences.

The complex pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis: scientific rationale for the development of an alternative treatment option

Allergic rhinitis (AR) poses a global health problem and can be challenging to treat. Many of the current symptomatic treatments for AR have been available for decades, yet there has been little improvement in patient quality of life or symptom burden over the years. In this review, we ask why this might be and explore the pathophysiological gaps that exist within the various AR treatment classes. We focus on the benefits and drawbacks of different treatment options and delivery routes for AR treatments and consider how, given what is known about AR pathophysiology and symptomatology, patients may be offered more effective treatment options for rapid, effective, and sustained AR control. In particular, we consider how a new AR preparation, MP-AzeFlu (Dymista^®, Meda, Sweden), comprising a formulation of an intranasal antihistamine (azelastine hydrochloride), an intranasal corticosteroid (fluticasone propionate), and excipients delivered in a single spray, may offer benefits over and above single and multiple AR therapy options. We review the evidence in support of this treatment across the spectrum of AR disease. The concept of AR control is also reviewed within the context of new European Union and Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif-Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma initiatives.

Phosphine-Promoted [4 + 3] Annulation of Allenoate with Aziridines for Synthesis of Tetrahydroazepines: Phosphine-Dependent [3 + 3] and [4 + 3] Pathways

In this manuscript, phosphine-dependent [3 + 3] and [4 + 3] annulation reactions of allenoate with aziridines were disclosed. The alkyldiphenylphosphine-promoted [4 + 3] annulation of allenoate with aziridines has been achieved under mild conditions, providing biologically interesting functionalized tetrahydroazepines in moderate to excellent yield with moderate to excellent regioselectivity and diastereoselectivity.

Superior effect of MP-AzeFlu than azelastine or fluticasone propionate alone on reducing inflammatory markers

BACKGROUND

MP-AzeFlu, intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP), is superior to AZE or FP alone for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the precise anti-inflammatory mechanism of action of MP-AzeFlu has not been characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the anti-inflammatory effects of MP-AzeFlu compared with AZE or FP alone in an established in vitro model of eosinophilic inflammation.

METHODS

Nasal mucosal epithelial cells and peripheral blood eosinophils were obtained from human volunteers. Epithelial cells were stimulated with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) in the presence of MP-AzeFlu, AZE, or FP (1:102 to 1:105 dilution). Concentrations of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) were measured by ELISA. Eosinophils were incubated in 10% human epithelial cell-conditioned medium (HECM) and survival assessed by trypan blue dye exclusion. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM percentage secretion/survival compared with FBS/HECM (respectively).

RESULTS

FP and MP-AzeFlu (all dilutions) and AZE (1:102) significantly reduced IL-6 secretion and eosinophil survival compared with positive controls. At 1:102 dilution, IL-6 secretion was significantly lower with MP-AzeFlu (38.3 ± 4.2%, compared with FBS = 100%) than with AZE (76.1 ± 4.9%) or FP (53.0 ± 4.9%). At 1:102 dilution, eosinophil survival was significantly lower with MP-AzeFlu at day 3 (17.5 ± 3.0%) and day 4 (2.4 ± 1.4%, compared with HECM = 100%) than with AZE (day 3: 75.2 ± 7.2%; day 4: 44.0 ± 9.7%) or FP (day 3: 38.5 ± 3.5%; day 4: 14.6 ± 4.0%).

CONCLUSION

Greater reductions in cytokine secretion and eosinophil survival observed with MP-AzeFlu in vitro may underlie MP-AzeFlu's superior clinical efficacy vs. AZE or FP alone observed in AR patients.

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.

Intranasal Corticosteroids Do Not Lead to Ocular Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The safety and efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are well established, but there remains apprehension that INCS could lead to systemic side effects, as with oral steroids. The objective of this systematic review was to assess whether the use of INCS lead to increased intraocular pressure (IOP) above 20 mm Hg, glaucoma, or formation of posterior subcapsular cataracts in adult patients with rhinitis.

METHODS

Two medical librarians searched the published literature for records discussing the use of "nasal steroids" in "rhinitis" and their effect on "intraocular pressure," "cataracts," or "glaucoma."

RESULTS

A total of 484 studies were identified, and 10 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 2,226 patients revealed that the relative risk of elevated IOP in those who received INCS was 2.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 7.34) compared to placebo. The absolute increased incidence of elevated IOP in patients using INCS compared to placebo was 0.8% (95% CI: 0% to 1.6%). There were zero cases of glaucoma in both placebo and INCS groups at 12 months. The absolute increased incidence of developing a posterior subcapsular cataract was 0.02% (95% CI: -0.3% to 0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of INCS is not associated with a significant risk of elevating IOP or developing a posterior subcapsular cataract in patients with allergic rhinitis. Presence of glaucoma, however, is the real clinical adverse event of concern. There were zero reported cases of glaucoma at 12 months. Future studies should formally evaluate for glaucoma rather than use IOP measures as a surrogate. Laryngoscope, 129:6-12, 2019.

Allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder that is strongly linked to asthma and conjunctivitis. It is usually a long-standing condition that often goes undetected in the primary-care setting. The classic symptoms of the disorder are nasal congestion, nasal itch, rhinorrhea and sneezing. A thorough history, physical examination and allergen skin testing are important for establishing the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. Second-generation oral antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment. Allergen immunotherapy is an effective immune-modulating treatment that should be recommended if pharmacologic therapy for allergic rhinitis is not effective or is not tolerated, or if chosen by the patient. This article provides an overview of the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and appropriate management of this disorder.

MP29-02 reduces nasal hyperreactivity and nasal mediators in patients with house dust mite-allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Nasal hyperreactivity (NHR) is an important clinical feature of allergic rhinitis (AR). The efficacy of MP29-02 (azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate [FP]) nasal spray on local inflammatory mediators and NHR in AR is unknown. We tested if MP29-02 decreases inflammatory mediators and NHR in AR and if this effect is due to restoration of nasal epithelial barrier function.

METHODS

A 4-week double-blinded placebo-controlled trial with MP29-02 treatment was conducted in 28 patients with house dust mite (HDM) AR. The presence of NHR was evaluated by measuring reduction in nasal flow upon cold dry air exposure. The effects of AZE ± FP on barrier integrity and airway inflammation were studied in a murine model of HDM-induced NHR and on reduced activation of murine sensory neurons and human mast cells.

RESULTS

MP29-02 but not placebo reduced NHR (P < .0001 vs P = .21), levels of substance P (P = .026 vs P = .941), and β-hexosaminidase (P = .036 vs P = .632) in human nasal secretions. In wild-type C57BL6 mice, the reduction in β-hexosaminidase levels (P < .0001) by AZE + FP treatment upon HDM challenge was found in parallel with a decreased transmucosal passage (P = .0012) and completely reversed eosinophilic inflammation (P = .0013). In vitro, repeated applications of AZE + FP desensitized sensory neurons expressing the transient receptor potential channels TRPA1 and TRPV1. AZE + FP reduced MC degranulation to the same extent as AZE alone.

CONCLUSION

MP29-02 treatment reduces inflammatory mediators and NHR in AR. The effects of AZE + FP on MC degranulation, nasal epithelial barrier integrity, and TRP channels provide novel insights into the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis.

Influence of MP 29-02 on ciliary beat frequency in human epithelial cells in vitro

PURPOSE

MP 29-02, which contains fluticasone propionate and azelastine hydrochloride, is used as a topical nasal application for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. Although a multitude of data is available on the clinical symptom reduction and treatment safety of MP 29-02, the effect of MP 29-02 on ciliary beat frequency (CBF) has not been evaluated thus far.

METHODS

MP 29-02-containing solution was applied at concentrations of 2.5, 5, 10, and 20% to 14 healthy subjects, and nasal ciliated epithelial cells were then visualized using a phase-contrast microscope. CBF was measured after the application of MP 29-02. For a comparison, fluticasone propionate was used. CBF measurements were then performed for 15 min at 22 °C. Ringer's solution was applied as a negative control.

RESULTS

MP 29-02 significantly reduced CBF at all the tested concentrations compared with that of the control group within the observation time. At a 2.5% concentration, MP 29-02 significantly reduced CBF from 6.81 Hz (SD ± 1.35 Hz) at baseline to 4.88 Hz (SD ± 1.52 Hz, p < 0.001) after 15 min. In contrast, for fluticasone propionate, a significant reduction was observed only with the 20% concentration after 5, 10, and 15 min.

CONCLUSIONS

MP 29-09 significantly reduced CB, with an almost linear relationship between the MP 29-09 concentration and reduction in CBF. For fluticasone propionate, a significant reduction of CBF was observed only at the highest analyzed concentration. The findings have implications for the long-term use of the MP 29-02. Yet, further clinical studies are needed to confirm these results in vivo, especially in patients with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinits.

Safety of a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in children: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The safety of a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) has been established in adults and adolescents with allergic rhinitis but not in children <12 years old.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of an intranasal formulation of AZE and FP in children ages 4-11 years with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, 3-month, parallel-group, open-label design. Qualified patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to AZE/FP (n = 304) or fluticasone propionate (FP) (n = 101), one spray per nostril twice daily, and to one of three age groups: ≥4 to <6 years, ≥6 to <9 years, and ≥9 to <12 years. Safety was assessed by child- or caregiver-reported adverse events, nasal examinations, vital signs, and laboratory assessments.

RESULTS

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was low in both the AZE/FP (16%) and FP-only (12%) groups after 90 days' continuous use. Epistaxis was the most frequently reported TRAE in both groups (AZE/FP, 9%; FP, 9%), followed by headache (AZE/FP, 3%; FP, 1%). All other TRAEs in the AZE/FP group were reported by ≤1% of the children. The majority of TRAEs were of mild intensity and resolved spontaneously. Results of nasal examinations showed an improvement over time in both groups, with no cases of mucosal ulceration or nasal septal perforation. There were no unusual or unexpected changes in laboratory parameters or vital signs.

CONCLUSION

The intranasal formulation of AZE and FP was safe and well tolerated after 3 months' continuous use in children with allergic rhinitis.The study was registered on <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ClinicalTrials.gov">ClinicalTrials.gov</ext-link> (NCT01794741).

The role of upper airway pathology as a co-morbidity in severe asthma

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma is a complex heterogeneous disease that is refractory to standard treatment and is complicated by multiple co-morbidities and risk factors. Several co-morbidities may contribute to worsen asthma control and complicate diagnostic and therapeutic management of severe asthmatic patients. Areas covered: A prevalent cluster of chronic upper airway co-morbid diseases is recognized in severe asthma. Evaluation for these disorders should always be considered in clinical practice. The aim of this review is to provide an updated overview of the prevalence, the pathogenetic mechanisms, the clinical impact and the therapeutic options for upper airway pathology in severe asthma, focusing on chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic rhinitis. Expert commentary: In the context of severe asthma, the clinical significance of upper airway co-morbidities is based on mutual interactions complicating diagnosis and management. A better analysis and understanding of phenotypes and endotypes of both upper and lower airway diseases are crucial to further develop targeted treatment.

Combination therapy in allergic rhinitis: What works and what does not work

Allergic rhinitis and other rhinitis subtypes are increasingly becoming some of the most prevalent and expensive medical conditions that affect the U.S.

POPULATION

Both direct health care costs and indirect costs significantly impact the health care system due to delays in diagnosis, lack of treatment, ineffective treatment, poor medication adherence, and associated comorbidities. Many patients who have AR turn to over-the-counter medications for relief but often find themselves dissatisfied with the results. Determining the correct diagnosis, followed by initiation of the most-effective treatment(s), is essential to provide patients with better symptomatic management and quality of life. Although there are many options, currently available combination therapies, e.g., azelastine with fluticasone and intranasal corticosteroids with nasal decongestants, offer distinct advantages for the management of complex rhinitis phenotypes. Further research is required to investigate the pathomechanisms and biomarkers for mixed rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis subtypes that will lead to novel targeted therapies for these conditions.

An algorithm recommendation for the pharmacological management of allergic rhinitis in the UK: a consensus statement from an expert panel

Allergic rhinitis is a frequent presenting problem in primary care in the UK, and has increased in prevalence over the last 30 years. When symptomatic, patients report significant reduction in their quality of life and impairment in school and work performance. Achieving adequate symptom control is pivotal to successful allergic rhinitis management, and relies mostly on pharmacotherapy. While it is recognised that most mild-moderate allergic rhinitis symptoms can be managed successfully in primary care, important gaps in general practitioner training in relation to allergic rhinitis have been identified. With the availability of new effective combination therapies, such as the novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single device (Dymista®; Meda), the majority of allergic rhinitis symptoms can be treated in the primary care setting. The primary objective of this consensus statement is to improve diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis in primary care, and offer guidance on appropriate referral of difficult-to-treat patients into secondary care. The guidance provided herein outlines a sequential treatment pathway for allergic rhinitis in primary care that incorporates a considered approach to improve the management of allergic rhinitis symptoms and improve compliance and patient satisfaction with therapy. Adherence with this care pathway has the potential to limit the cost of providing effective allergic rhinitis management in the UK by avoiding unnecessary treatments and investigations, and avoiding the need for costly referrals to secondary care in the majority of allergic rhinitis cases. The fundamentals presented in this consensus article should apply in most health-care settings.

Treatment of allergic children - Where is the progress (for the practicing allergist)?

For any kind of therapeutic intervention in allergic diseases such as environmental control, pharmacological, or immunomodulating treatment including educational programs, children are addressed separately from adults. Health authorities like the Food and Drug Administration in the United States of America or the European Medicine Agency in Europe request a specific 'Pediatric investigational plan' with studies addressing dose-response relationship, safety, and efficacy for infants, children, and adolescents. During the last 2 years, promising advances have been reported for the treatment of a variety of allergic and immunologic disorders. This review summarizes the progress in the treatment of pediatric asthma and allergic diseases, based on publications of approximately the last 2.5 years (end of 2013 until May 2016) in and beyond this journal. Meanwhile, it highlights areas with promising novel therapeutic approaches, which are likely to change treatment for allergic children in the near future.

MP-AzeFlu is more effective than fluticasone propionate for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in children

The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of MP-AzeFlu (Dymista(®) ) vs fluticasone propionate (FP), (both 1 spray/nostril bid), in children with allergic rhinitis (AR). MP-AzeFlu combines azelastine hydrochloride, FP and a novel formulation in a single spray. Children were randomized in a 3 : 1 ratio to MP-AzeFlu or FP in this open-label, 3-month study. Efficacy was assessed in children aged ≥ 6 to <12 years (MP-AzeFlu: n = 264; FP: n = 89), using a 4-point symptom severity rating scale from 0 to 3 (0 = no symptoms; 3 = severe symptoms). Over the 3-month period, MP-AzeFlu-treated children experienced significantly greater symptom relief than FP-treated children (Diff: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.28, -0.01; P = 0.04), noted from the first day (particularly the first 7 days) and sustained for 90 days. More MP-AzeFlu children achieved symptom-free or mild symptom severity status, and did so up to 16 days faster than FP. MP-AzeFlu provides significantly greater, more rapid and clinically relevant symptom relief than FP in children with AR.

A review of the clinical efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu, a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate, in clinical studies conducted during different allergy seasons in the US

A novel intranasal formulation of azelastine HCl (AZE, an antihistamine) and fluticasone propionate (FP, a corticosteroid) in a single spray (MP-AzeFlu [Dymista®]) was studied in four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis conducted in the US. Study sites were distributed so that all major US geographic regions and the prevalent pollens within these regions were represented. Spring and summer studies included patients aged 12 years and older with allergy to grass and tree pollens. Fall studies enrolled patients with allergy to weeds, in particular ragweed. In addition, a study was conducted during the winter months in patients with allergy to mountain cedar pollen in TX, USA. Regardless of allergy season or prevalent pollen, MP-AzeFlu improved nasal symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR) to a significantly greater degree than AZE or FP, two treatments that currently are recommended as the first-line AR therapy. MP-AzeFlu improved all individual AR symptoms and was significantly better than FP and AZE for nasal congestion relief, which is generally accepted as the most bothersome symptom for AR patients. The onset of action was within 30 minutes. MP-AzeFlu also provided clinically important improvement in the overall Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score and significantly improved ocular symptoms of rhinitis compared to placebo. Favorable characteristics of the MP-AzeFlu formulation as well as superior clinical efficacy make it an ideal intranasal therapy for AR.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Allergic Rhinitis: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or Anchor-Based Thresholds?

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution-based thresholds.

METHODS

Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor- and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine+intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold.

RESULTS

No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report.

Recent pharmacological developments in the treatment of perennial and persistent allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) has a major negative impact on patients' quality of life (QoL) and carries a high socio economic burden. This is particularly the case for patients who experience symptoms for extended periods of time (i.e. those with perennial (PAR) or persistent AR (PER), depending on the classification system used). This review covers available pharmacological advances and recent developments in the treatment of PAR or PER.

AREAS COVERED

Pharmacological AR treatment is used to reduce symptom burden and help restore patients' normal daily routine. Traditionally, non-sedating antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids (INS) were the two drug classes recommended for use first line. These, along with antileukotrienes, decongestants, mast cell stabilizers and anticholinergics, constituted the bulk of the AR treatment arsenal. MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®, Meda, Solna, Sweden) is the most recent addition to that arsenal. It is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) delivered in a single spray and has surpassed available therapies in terms of symptom control and treatment response. Other relatively new treatments for PAR or PER include H3 antihistamines, toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, cellulose powders and micro-emulsions, novel biomolecular formulations and omalizumab. Each of these new additions is reviewed here.

EXPERT OPINION

A new AR drug class has recently been introduced (i.e. RO1AD58). Currently MP-AzeFlu is the only treatment option within this drug class. It can be estimated that combination treatments like MP-AzeFlu will become the mainstay of PAR and PER therapy since use will result in better compliance, improved efficacy over INS and a faster response together with good levels of tolerability. The challenge is to find other equally, or more effective, combination treatments, as has been the therapeutic standard in bronchial asthma for decades. The potential of biologics, as well as TLR-agonists and other new treatment options needs to be further evaluated.

Efficacy of MP-AzeFlu in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis: Importance of paediatric symptom assessment

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of MP-AzeFlu (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single spray) in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and explore the importance of child symptom severity assessment in paediatric allergic rhinitis (AR) trials.

METHODS

A total of 348 children (4-11 years) with moderate/severe SAR were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-day, parallel-group trial. Efficacy was assessed by changes from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS) and individual symptom scores over 14 days (children 6-11 years; n = 304), recorded by either children or caregivers. To determine whether a by-proxy effect existed, efficacy outcomes were assessed according to degree of child/caregiver rating. Moreover, total Paediatric Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) score was compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A statistically superior, clinically relevant efficacy signal of MP-AzeFlu versus placebo was apparent for PRQLQ overall score (diff: -0.29, 95% CI -0.55, -0.03; p = 0.027), but not for rTNSS (diff: -0.80; 95% CI: -1.75; 0.15; p = 0.099). However, as the extent of children's self-rating increased, so too did the treatment difference between MP-AzeFlu and placebo; MP-AzeFlu provided significantly better relief than placebo for rTNSS (p = 0.002), rTOSS (p = 0.009) and each individual nasal and ocular symptom assessed (except rhinorrhoea; p = 0.064) when children mostly rated their own symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

MP-AzeFlu is an effective treatment for AR in childhood. Caregivers are less able than children to accurately assess response to treatment with available tools. A simple paediatric-specific tool to assess efficacy in AR trials in children is needed.

Effectiveness of allergic rhinitis treatments in real-life with a focus on MP-AzeFlu

For any allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment, it is crucial to provide evidence not only of efficacy (assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs)) but also of effectiveness in real-life. Observational studies provide valuable data on the use and results associated with interventions prescribed in real-life. However, real-life evidence supporting available AR treatment options is sparse with effectiveness only established for oral antihistamines (desloratadine, ebastine), intranasal corticosteroids (mometasone furoate, fluticasone propionate (FP)), allergen immunotherapy and omalizumab. A novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and FP in a single spray (MP-AzeFlu) shows great promise, with the effectiveness observed in real-life exceeding that noted in RCTs. This review summarises real-life data on MP-AzeFlu, which provides rapid and sustained symptom control irrespective of patient age, AR phenotype or disease severity. We call for high quality real-life research in addition to RCTs to inform future AR treatment guidelines.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis is a worldwide health problem, currently affecting up to 40% of the general population, and characterized by the following symptoms in a variable degree of severity and duration: nasal congestion/obstruction, rhinorrhea, itchy nose and/or eyes, and/or sneezing. General symptoms like fatigue, reduced quality of sleep, impaired concentration and reduced productivity, if left untreated, may significantly affect quality of life. In addition, of being associated to various comorbidities, allergic rhinitis is also an independent risk factor for the development and worsening of asthma. Perennial allergic rhinitis is caused by allergens present around the year.

AREAS COVERED

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines currently recommend a stepwise therapeutic approach that combines patient education with specific allergen avoidance, symptomatic pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy. The available treatment strategies provide suboptimal symptom relief in patients with moderate-to-severe disease who continue to experience symptoms while treated, even on multiple therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

New insights into current therapy have been provided with the development of new symptomatic drugs with improved pharmacokinetics and safety. However, the ultimate research goal is beyond symptomatic treatment, and is mainly directed at modifying the immune response to allergens and prevent the progression of allergic rhinitis towards asthma. In this direction, promising advances are expected in the fields of allergen immunotherapy and biological drugs, such as omalizumab. Finally, significant research efforts are also focused on the growing number of new specific molecular targets involved in the Th2 pathway inflammation of allergic diseases.

Safety evaluation of MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate) for allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

As a chronic disease, allergic rhinitis (AR) requires regular use of allergy medications for the effective management of symptoms. It is therefore imperative that AR treatments not only provide adequate symptom control but are also well tolerated.

AREAS COVERED

MP29-02 (Dymista, Meda, Solna, Sweden) is the first new class of AR medication (WHO ATC R01AD58) since the introduction of intranasal corticosteroids (INS) almost 50 years ago. It is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate delivered in a single spray. Here we review all the safety information relevant to MP29-02, from the initial phase I bioavailability and disposition data, to the phase III 14-day and 52-week data and finally to phase IV safety data collected during MP29-02 use in routine clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

MP29-02 is the first real therapeutic advance in AR since the introduction of INS and has the potential to change the way this disease is managed, simplifying AR treatment regimens to a single puff in each nostril twice a day. Patients will benefit from superior symptom relief MP29-02 compared to INS with the added assurance that the safety of MP29-02 has been confirmed in the short term and long term as well as in real life.

Escaping the trap of allergic rhinitis

Rhinitis is often the first symptom of allergy but is frequently ignored and classified as a nuisance condition. Ironically it has the greatest socioeconomic burden worldwide caused by its impact on work and on daily life.

However, patients appear reticent to seek professional advice, visiting their doctor only when symptoms become ‘intolerable’ and often when their usual therapy proves ineffective.

Clearly, it’s time for new and more effective allergic rhinitis treatments.

MP29-02 (Dymista®; Meda, Solna, Sweden) is a new class of medication for moderate to severe seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis if monotherapy with either intranasal antihistamine or intranasal corticosteroids is not considered sufficient.

MP29-02 is a novel formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP). It benefits not only from the incorporation of two active agents, but also from a novel formulation; its lower viscosity, smaller droplet size, larger volume (137 μl) and wider spray angle ensure optimal coverage of, and retention on the nasal mucosa and contribute to its clinical efficacy.

In clinical trials, patients treated with MP29-02 experienced twice the symptom relief as those treated with FP and AZE, who in turn exhibited significantly greater symptom relief than placebo-patients. Indeed, the advantage of MP29-02 over FP was approximately the same as that shown for FP over placebo. The advantage of MP29-02 was particularly evident in those patients for whom nasal congestion is predominant, with MP29-02 providing three times the nasal congestion relief of FP (p = 0.0018) and five times the relief of AZE (p = 0.0001). Moreover, patients treated with MP29-02 achieved each and every response up to a week faster than those treated with FP or AZE alone and in real life 1 in 2 patients reported the perception of well-controlled disease after only 3 days. MP29-02’s superiority over FP was also apparent long-term in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis or non-allergic rhinitis, with statistical significance noted from the first day of treatment, with treatment difference maintained for a full year.

Taken together, these data suggest that MP29-02 may improve the lives of many of our patients, enabling them to finally escape the allergic rhinitis trap.

A role for the intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride/fluticasone propionate in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Rhinitis is a very common disease and represents a health problem for both children and adults globally. Rhinitis can be allergic or occur without any IgE-mediated sensitization to aeroallergens. Common symptoms include nasal congestion, postnasal drainage, nasal itching, rhinorrhea and sneezing. The most effective drugs for the treatment of rhinitis are antihistamines and topical glucocorticoids. MP29-02 (Dymista(®)) is a novel intranasal formulation combining the second-generation antihistamine, azelastine hydrochloride, with fluticasone propionate in a single device that has recently been developed. Here, we review the efficacy and safety profile of this intranasal formulation in the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

Advances in pharmacotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; MP29-02 (a novel formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system) fills the gaps

INTRODUCTION

Effective pharmacologic treatment exists for most patients suffering from allergic rhinitis (AR). However, both in clinical trials and in real-life studies, many patients are dissatisfied with treatment. Physicians often use multiple therapies, in an attempt to improve symptom control, often with limited evidence of success. Novel treatment options are needed and must consider unmet medical needs.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the clinical data for a new AR treatment. MP29-02 (Dymista®, Meda, Solna, Sweden) contains azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP), in a novel formulation and delivered in an improved device as a single nasal spray. It has shown superior efficacy in AR patients than either commercially available AZE or FP monotherapy for both nasal and ocular symptom relief, regardless of disease severity. MP29-02 also provided more effective and rapid symptom relief than either AZE or FP monotherapy delivered in the MP29-02 formulation and device. However, the effect was less than that observed versus commercial comparators, suggesting the impact of formulation and device on clinical efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

MP29-02 simplifies AR management, surpassing the efficacy of gold standard treatment, intranasal corticosteroids (INS), for the first time. It is indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis when monotherapy with either intranasal antihistamine or INS is NOT considered sufficient. Most patients present with moderate/severe disease, with evidence of current or previous treatment insufficiency. MP29-02 should be the treatment of choice for these patients.

Current recommendations and emerging options for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases and represents a global health problem, currently affecting up to 30% of the general population, with a continuously increasing prevalence and significant comorbidities and complications. The aim of this review is to provide an update on AR treatment, with a focus on current therapies defined by AR and its impact on asthma guidelines and with a particular emphasis on new and future therapeutic perspectives.