Search

Abstract MP‐AzeFlu (intranasal fluticasone and azelastine) has been widely studied and has demonstrated efficacy in Allergic rhinitis with a superior effect compared to these drugs administered individually; however, the mechanism by which MP‐AzeFlu produces this improved clinical effect has not yet been fully explained. In this study, we investigated the effect of MP‐AzeFlu and fluticasone propionate (FP) on arachidonic acid metabolism as measured by changes in regulation of cyclooxygenase (COX) isoforms, prostaglandin (PG) D2, PGE2, PGE2 receptor (EP) 2, and EP3. Expression of these key inflammation markers was assessed through an in vitro model of upper airway inflammation using fibroblasts derived from both healthy and inflamed upper airway mucosa. Both MP‐AzeFlu and FP inhibited interleukin‐1β‐induced COX‐2 messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein expression and PGE2 secretion in vitro. MP‐AzeFlu and FP both upregulated EP2 mRNA expression, though neither upregulated EP2 protein expression. This downregulation of COX‐2 and PGE2 coupled with upregulation of EP2 receptor expression reinforces the anti‐inflammatory effect of MP‐AzeFlu in upper airway inflammation.

Abstract Background Intramuscular (IM) injection of epinephrine (adrenaline) at the mid-anterolateral (AL) thigh is the international standard therapy for acute anaphylaxis. Concerns exist regarding implications of epinephrine auto-injector needles not penetrating the muscle in patients with greater skin-to-muscle-distances (STMD). Methods This open-label, randomized, crossover study investigated pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics following injection of epinephrine in healthy volunteers. Individuals were stratified by maximally compressed STMD (low, 20 mm). Participants received epinephrine injections via EpiPen® Auto-Injector (EpiPen; 0.3 mg/0.3 mL) or IM syringe (0.3 mg/0.3 mL) at mid-AL thigh or received saline by IM syringe in a randomized order. Eligible participants received a fourth treatment (EpiPen [0.3 mg/0.3 mL] at distal-AL thigh). Model-independent pharmacokinetic parameters and pharmacodynamics were assessed. Results There were numerical trends toward higher peak epinephrine concentrations (0.52 vs 0.35 ng/mL; geometric mean ratio, 1.40; 90% CI 117.6–164.6%) and more rapid exposure (time to peak concentration, 20 vs 50 min) for EpiPen vs IM syringe at mid-AL thigh across STMD groups. Absorption was faster over the first 30 min for EpiPen vs IM syringe (partial area under curve [AUC] over first 30 min: geometric mean ratio, 2.13; 90% CI 159.0–285.0%). Overall exposure based on AUC to the last measurable concentration was similar for EpiPen vs IM syringe (geometric mean ratio, 1.13; 90% CI 98.8–129.8%). Epinephrine pharmacokinetics after EpiPen injection were similar across STMD groups. Treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions Epinephrine delivery via EpiPen resulted in greater early systemic exposure to epinephrine vs IM syringe as assessed by epinephrine plasma levels. Delivery via EpiPen was consistent across participants with a wide range of STMD, even when the needle may not have penetrated the muscle. Trial registrationsThis trial was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00011263; secondary ID, EudraCT 2016-000104-29) on 23 March 2017.