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

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 .

Multimorbidities in Allergic Rhinitis-Current Evidence from Epidemiological Studies, Treatment Trials, and Molecular Data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given that allergic rhinitis (AR) commonly coexists with other diseases, the present narrative review attempts a brief presentation of current theories on multimorbidities in relation to phenotypes, genotypes, age, and treatment responses with the term "multimorbidities" indicating the uncertainty regarding the primary defect, organ, or pathophysiologic mechanism involved.

RECENT FINDINGS

Though age-related manifestations allow for the generation of several hypotheses on AR's specific mechanisms, the various theories regarding the initiation or the aggravation of atopic disorders have yet to be proved. Multimorbid AR seems to have a different genetic basis from "stand-alone" AR as well a more severe phenotype. Most studies on the treatment of AR and its multimorbidities focus on allergen immunotherapy, which improves the atopic symptoms and may play a preventive role in the onset of new allergen sensitizations. The use of biological factors may also have a beneficial effect, even though it has currently been approved only for some comorbidities of AR, such as asthma. Employing the use of phenotypes and genotypes concerning multimorbidity broadens current knowledge, but further research is needed to develop diagnostic, stratificational, and predictive algorithms for single and multimorbid allergic diseases (Fig. 1). The real-time data obtained by mobile apps and the new insights on the pathophysiology of AR and its comorbidities will permit both timed preventive measures and better individualized and effective antiallergic treatment. Fig. 1 Current concepts and future trends in diagnosis and management of multimorbid allergic rhinitis.

Academic Productivity of Young People With Allergic Rhinitis: A MASK-air Study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested an impact of allergic rhinitis on academic productivity. However, large studies with real-world data (RWD) are not available.

OBJECTIVE

To use RWD to assess the impact of allergic rhinitis on academic performance (measured through a visual analog scale [VAS] education and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire plus Classroom Impairment Questions: Allergy Specific [WPAI+CIQ:AS] questionnaire), and to identify factors associated with the impact of allergic rhinitis on academic performance.

METHODS

We assessed data from the MASK-air mHealth app of users aged 13 to 29 years with allergic rhinitis. We assessed the correlation between variables measuring the impact of allergies on academic performance (VAS education, WPAI+CIQ:AS impact of allergy symptoms on academic performance, and WPAI+CIQ:AS percentage of education hours lost due to allergies) and other variables. In addition, we identified factors associated with the impact of allergic symptoms on academic productivity through multivariable mixed models.

RESULTS

A total of 13,454 days (from 1970 patients) were studied. VAS education was strongly correlated with the WPAI+CIQ:AS impact of allergy symptoms on academic productivity (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58; 0.80]), VAS global allergy symptoms (0.70 [95% CI = 0.68; 0.71]), and VAS nose (0.66 [95% CI = 0.65; 0.68]). In multivariable regression models, immunotherapy showed a strong negative association with VAS education (regression coefficient = -2.32 [95% CI = -4.04; -0.59]). Poor rhinitis control, measured by the combined symptom-medication score, was associated with worse VAS education (regression coefficient = 0.88 [95% CI = 0.88; 0.92]), higher impact on academic productivity (regression coefficient = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.49; 0.90]), and higher percentage of missed education hours due to allergy (regression coefficient = 0.44 [95% CI = 0.25; 0.63]).

CONCLUSION

Allergy symptoms and worse rhinitis control are associated with worse academic productivity, whereas immunotherapy is associated with higher productivity.

Intranasal corticosteroid use in patients with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases in the world, which is based on IgE-mediated inflammation that develops after exposure to various allergens. About 40% of people suffer from the same or other allergic diseases, every third inhabitant of the Earth has symptoms of AR and every tenth has bronchial asthma. According to the ARIA classification, ARs are divided: by the nature of the flow, by the severity of the flow and by the stage of the flow; for symptoms, the proposed therapy, consisting of sequential steps. Groups of drugs include: systemic or topical blockers of histamine H1 receptors, intranasal and systemic corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers (intranasal cromones), M-antagonists, antagonists of leukotriene receptors. Medicines do not give a lasting effect after their cancellation, therefore, with persistent AR, treatment should be prolonged; methods of application more often oral or intranasal. The advantages of the pharmacological antiallergic effect of InHCS are the simultaneous inhibition of both the early and late phases of the allergic response and the inhibition of all AR symptoms. The advantage of InHCS over oral administration is the minimal risk of developing systemic side effects against the background of the creation of adequate concentrations of the substance in the nasal mucosa, which allows to control the symptoms of AR. Based on data from a number of studies, the advantages of intrasal corticosteroids for AR, in particular fluticasone propionate, are used.