Search

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is prevalent, and many patients present with moderate-to-severe symptomatic disease. The majority of patients are not satisfied with their AR treatment, despite the use of concurrent medications. These gaps underscore the need for treatment with more effective options for moderate-to-severe AR. The authors' objective was to review systematically the efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of AR. The primary outcomes studied were nasal, ocular, and total symptoms. Other outcomes included time to onset and of AR control, quality of life, and safety. Searches of PubMed and Cochrane databases were conducted on May 14, 2020, with no date restrictions, to identify publications reporting data on MP-AzeFlu. Clinical studies of any phase were included. Studies were excluded if they were not in English, were review articles, did not discuss the safety and efficacy of MP-AzeFlu for AR symptoms. Treatment of AR with MP-AzeFlu results in effective, sustained relief of nasal and ocular symptoms, and faster onset and time to control compared with intranasal azelastine or fluticasone propionate. Long-term use of MP-AzeFlu was safe, with benefits in children, adults, and adults aged ≥65 years. Other treatment options, including fluticasone propionate and azelastine alone or the combination of intranasal corticosteroids and oral antihistamine, do not provide the same level of efficacy as MP-AzeFlu in terms of rapid and sustained relief of the entire AR symptom complex. Furthermore, MP-AzeFlu significantly improves patient quality of life. MP-AzeFlu is a currently available combination that may satisfy all these patient needs and expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A generic combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder in a premetered, multidose, nonreusable inhaler was recently approved. Objective: To assess the performance of the generic device. Methods: Findings from three studies with regard to device usability, function, and robustness were reviewed. Results: In a study to assess device function in patients and healthy volunteers, the generic device was successfully used by patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were either dry powder inhaler users or dry powder inhaler-naive, even though they were not trained beyond being provided the instructions for use. In a study to measure inhaled flow rates generated by patients and healthy volunteers, the generic device consistently simulated the delivery of a full dose of drug, even to patients with severe respiratory disease and reduced inspiratory flow rates. Although the generic device had a slightly higher airflow resistance, this study demonstrated that this difference did not result in any clinically meaningful differences in terms of drug delivery. Pressure drop, a key parameter that drives the fluidization and aerosolization of the powder dose, was found to be comparable between the devices. In an open-label study, the generic device met all U.S. Food and Drug Administration specifications for device robustness after 21.5 days of twice-daily dosing via oral inhalation among 111 participants with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All inhalers tested demonstrated conformity with a pharmacopeia with respect to key quality parameters (assay, delivered dose uniformity, aerodynamic size distribution). There was no evidence of chemical degradation of the active ingredients, nor of microbial or water ingress into the powder, as a result of inhaler use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Phenotyping allergic rhinitis (AR) by immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitivity and comorbidities may help characterize AR and provide a framework for treatment decisions. Methods: This prospective, noninterventional study evaluated the effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu (azelastine hydrochloride plus fluticasone propionate intranasal spray formulation) across AR phenotypes. Patients with moderate-to--severe seasonal or perennial AR for whom MP-AzeFlu was prescribed were enrolled. AR subpopulations (ARPs) were assigned based on the classification of IgE response and comorbidities. AR symptoms over the previous 24 h were documented using an AR visual analog scale (AR-VAS), with ratings from "not at all bothersome" (0 mm) to "extremely bothersome" (100 mm), at the inclusion visit and on days 1, 3, 7, and the last day of the study (approximately day 14). AR quality-of-life measures were recorded using a VAS. Results: A total of 1,103 patients with AR were included. Mean baseline AR-VAS scores ranged from 70.3 to 75.1 mm (severe) across ARPs. In the overall population, 86.6% of patients responded to treatment (AR-VAS score <50 mm on ≥1 days). In the ARPs, response rates ranged from 79.3 to 89.6%. Mean reduction in AR-VAS scores ranged from 47.9 to 40.9 mm, a decrease from severe to mild across all ARPs. Quality-of-life VAS scores were similarly reduced in the total population and ARPs. Discussion/Conclusion: MP-AzeFlu treatment reduced VAS severity and quality-of-life scores from baseline in the total population and ARPs, supporting MP-AzeFlu as an effective treatment for all patients with moderate-to-severe AR, regardless of AR phenotype or comorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intranasal antihistamines and steroids should be delivered in a volume and with a technique that allow for optimal drug retention within the entire nasal cavity, maximize local absorption by the nasal mucosa, and, subsequently, increase the potential for the most desirable local availability and therapeutic effect. Objective: This in vitro evaluation simulated nasal medication deposition and evaluated the extent of runoff. MP-AzeFlu, a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) plus fluticasone propionate (FP), was compared with sequential sprays of available commercial products with the individual medication components. Methods: A model of a normal adult human nasal cavity was used to visualize deposition of nasal spray products. A single spray of MP-AzeFlu (0.137 mL [137 mg of AZE/50 mg of FP]) or single sequential sprays of AZE nasal spray (0.137 mL [137 mg]) followed by brand name or generic FP nasal spray (0.100 mL [50 mg]) were manually actuated into the model. The interior was coated with a water-sensitive dye that changes to magenta when exposed to aqueous-based formulations. A slight vacuum was applied during spray delivery to simulate sniffing. The results were photographed by using anterior and lateral views. Results: Three replicates of MP-AzeFlu showed no dripping from the front of the nostril or backflow from the nasal cavity. However, three replicates of AZE nasal spray, followed by a brand name or generic FP nasal spray, showed significant dripping from the front of the nostril and backflow from the nasal cavity. Conclusion: A single spray of MP-AzeFlu resulted in no runoff compared with sequential dosing of the two other therapeutic products. Product runoff is likely due to the volume exceeding the capacity of the nasal cavity model. Furthermore, the common clinical dosing regimen of two sprays per nostril of each of the individual components would promote even greater increased undesirable flooding and leakage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Most patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) have moderate-to-severe disease, requiring complete and prompt relief when symptoms occur. The time course of fluticasone propionate (FP) penetration into nasal tissues after intranasal administration is not well characterized. The goal of this proof-of-concept study was to evaluate the mucosal penetration of FP from fixed-combination FP-azelastine nasal spray (MP-AzeFlu) compared with an FP-only nasal spray in an in vitro, 3-dimensional human bronchial tissue model. Materials and Methods: Absorption of FP from MP-AzeFlu and FP nasal spray was modeled using EpiAirway™ 606 (MatTek Corporation; Ashland, MA, USA) tissue cultured in vertical diffusion cells. The dosing amount of MP-AzeFlu was optimized in a pilot study. Based on the results of the pilot study, 10 μL of MP-AzeFlu (3.65 μg; n = 8) and 10 μL of FP nasal spray (5.00 μg; n = 8) were evaluated for penetration of tissue. Tissue integrity was monitored with Lucifer yellow. FP in the receiving media was quantified for each sample using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Results: MP-AzeFlu and FP nasal spray were associated with similar FP accumulation profiles in the receiving media, but the permeability of FP was greater for MP-AzeFlu during hours 0 to 6, suggesting faster absorption for MP-AzeFlu. No indications of compromised tissue integrity were found in any of the tested cells. Conclusion: The higher and more rapid penetration of FP from MP-AzeFlu supports the use of MP-AzeFlu for patients with AR, particularly when prioritizing fast and pronounced symptom relief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]