These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy of a Novel Intranasal Formulation of Azelastine Hydrochloride and Fluticasone Propionate, Delivered in a Single Spray, for the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: Results from Russia.
    Author: Ilyina NI, Edin AS, Astafieva NG, Lopatin AS, Sidorenko IV, Ukhanova OP, Khanova FM.
    Journal: Int Arch Allergy Immunol; 2019; 178(3):255-263. PubMed ID: 30677766.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in a single spray (MP-AzeFlu) was compared with a first-line intranasal antihistamine spray (AZE) in Russian seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients. METHODS: Moderate-to-severe SAR/rhinoconjunctivitis patients (n = 149; aged 18-65 years) were randomized to receive MP-AzeFlu (137/50 μg AZE/FP per spray) or AZE (137 μg/spray), both as 1 spray/nostril twice daily, in a multicenter, open-label, 14-day, parallel-group trial. The primary outcome was change from baseline in morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS). Secondary end points included: change from baseline in reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), reflective total of 7 symptom scores (rT7SS), 28-item Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) overall score, and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire score. RESULTS: When compared with AZE-treated patients, those treated with MP-AzeFlu experienced significantly greater reductions in rTNSS (difference: -2.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.65 to -1.30; p < 0.001), rTOSS (difference: -1.62; 95% CI -2.32 to -0.92; p < 0.001), and rT7SS (difference: -4.34; 95% CI -5.98 to -2.70; p < 0.001). Superior relief observed on day 2 with MP-AzeFlu versus AZE was sustained throughout the study. MP-AzeFlu-treated patients experienced a greater improvement in QoL than AZE-treated patients as measured by overall RQLQ score (mean ± SD 2.91 ± 1.08 vs. 2.05 ± 1.15) and EQ-5D score (mean ± SD 87.4 ± 10.3 vs. 83.0 ± 12.8). MP-AzeFlu was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: MP-AzeFlu was superior to AZE in reducing moderate-to-severe SAR symptoms, providing earlier and more complete symptom relief.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]