Onset of therapeutic effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray

Rhinorrhea and increased chloride secretion through the CFTR chloride channel-a systematic review

PURPOSE

Allergic and non-allergic rhinorrhea in the forms of acute or chronic rhinosinusitis can mean a watery nasal discharge that is disabling. Primary objective was to review the evidence supporting the hypothesis that rhinorrhea is due to increased chloride secretion through the CFTR chloride channel.

METHODS

The structure of the evidence review followed the EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines. Databases searched from inception to February 2022 included Pubmed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library using keywords "Rhinorrhea", "chloride", "chloride channel", "CFTR" and "randomized controlled trial". Quality assessment was according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine.

RESULTS

49 articles were included. They included randomized controlled trials out of which subsets of data with the outcome of rhinorrhea on 6038 participants were analysed and in vitro and animal studies. The review revealed that drugs, which activate CFTR are associated with rhinorrhea. Viruses, which cause rhinorrhea like rhinovirus were found to activate CFTR. The chloride concentration in nasal fluid showed an increase in patients with viral upper respiratory tract infection. Increased hydrostatic tissue pressure, which is an activator of CFTR was observed in allergic upper airway inflammation. In this condition exhaled breath condensate chlorine concentration was found to be significantly increased. Drugs, which can reduce CFTR function including steroids, anti-histamines, sympathomimetic and anticholinergic drugs reduced rhinorrhea in randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSIONS

A model of CFTR activation-mediated rhinorrhea explains the effectiveness of anticholinergic, sympathomimetic, anti-histamine and steroid drugs in reducing rhinorrhea and opens up avenues for further improvement of treatment by already known specific CFTR inhibitors.

Comparative nasal airflow with loratadine-pseudoephedrine and fluticasone nasal spray for allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Although it is known that oral antihistamine-pseudoephedrine combination tablets have a faster onset than intranasal corticosteroid sprays in the treatment of allergic rhinitis after the first dose, the magnitude of change has not been measured in a comparative manner. Furthermore, the sensation of sprayed liquid in the nose may lead patients to mistakenly believe that intranasal steroid sprays work instantly.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, numerically, nasal airflow changes provided by a single dose of loratadine-pseudoephedrine tablet (LP) and fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FP) in participants experiencing allergic rhinitis symptoms, including nasal congestion.

METHODS

This single-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study evaluated objective nasal airflow changes in patients with a documented sensitivity to ragweed pollen. Participants were randomized to receive 1 of 4 treatment sequences, and their peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) was measured in a span of 4 hours after pollen exposure in an environmental exposure unit.

RESULTS

Average change in PNIF was 31% with LP in the course of the study, significantly greater than with placebo and FP (12% and 15%, respectively; P < .001). Nevertheless, FP did not produce a significant change compared with its placebo. At hour one post-dose, LP had a clinically significant 31% increase in PNIF, whereas FP only yielded an 8.6% increase (P < .001). Measurable nasal airflow improvements are associated with the opening of nasal passages, allowing congested patients to breathe more freely.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of LP quickly and significantly (P < .001) improved nasal airflow after ragweed pollen challenge in an environmental exposure unit. Comparatively, FP did not display this same benefit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03443843.

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.

Effect of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray on seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in an environmental exposure chamber study

BACKGROUND

GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate intended for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily or twice-daily GSP301 in a ragweed pollen environmental exposure chamber.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, adults (18-65 years old) with SAR were equally randomized to 665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone (twice-daily GSP301), 665 μg of olopatadine and 50 μg of mometasone (once-daily GSP301), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 137 μg of azelastine and 50 μg of fluticasone twice-daily (AzeFlu), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 665 μg of olopatadine twice-daily, or placebo (twice-daily). During 2 visits (baseline and end of 14-day treatment), participants assessed SAR symptoms at specified time points. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) for twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 vs placebo-was analyzed by analysis of covariance. Onset of action, ocular symptoms, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 180 participants were randomized. Treatment with twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant improvements in iTNSS vs placebo (twice-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.89 to -2.30; once-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -4.35 to -1.76; P < .0001 for both). Significant improvements in iTNSS with twice-daily GSP301 occurred by 10 minutes after dosing (-1.26; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.21; P = .02) and were maintained at all later time points except one (2.5 hours). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 22.2%, 30.6%, 25.0%, 22.2%, and 16.7% of participants in the twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, AzeFlu, olopatadine, and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In an environmental exposure chamber model, twice-daily and once-daily GSP301 treatments were well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful SAR symptom improvement vs placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03444506.

Preventive effect of nasal filters on allergic rhinitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover park study

BACKGROUND

A recently reported small, out-of-season environmental exposure unit study found nasal filters to be efficacious in preventing seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR). However, nasal filters still need to show efficacy in a natural setting in a regular pollen season.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the efficacy of nasal filters (Rhinix; Rhinix ApS, Aarhus, Denmark) for the prevention of symptoms related to seasonal AR.

METHODS

The trial was a single-center, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover clinical trial (NCT02108574) conducted over 2 days in the main grass pollen season in June 2014 in Aarhus, Denmark, on 65 adults with proven grass allergy. A total nasal symptom score (TNSS) consisting of blocked nose, runny nose, nasal itching, and sneezing was used to evaluate symptoms. The difference in daily∑ TNSS (the sum of 13 ratings) was the primary outcome measure. The difference in maximum TNSS (highest score, 13 ratings) was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The nasal filters significantly reduced daily∑ TNSSs (P = .03) and maximum TNSSs (P = .03) compared with placebo. Median relative reductions were 40% for daily∑ TNSSs (P = .02), 43% for maximum TNSSs (P = .004), 83% for daily∑ sneezing (P = .001), 75% for daily∑ watery eyes (P = .02), and 53% for daily∑ runny nose (P = .005) when compared with placebo. The nasal filters were well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions were achieved for the primary outcome measure of daily∑ TNSS, for maximum TNSS and for a subset of individual symptoms. The results support the preventive role of nasal filters for managing seasonal AR.

Nasal carbon dioxide for the symptomatic treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Brief nasal carbon dioxide insufflation has previously been shown to provide rapid relief of the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and efficacy of nasal carbon dioxide on the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, in-clinic study that evaluated 2 flow rates (5 or 10 mL/s) and 2 administration durations (10 or 30 seconds per nostril) for nasal carbon dioxide vs placebo. Study participants rated their symptoms in clinic for 4 hours after administration and then through 24 hours outside the clinic. A total of 348 symptomatic patients with a minimum 2-year history of perennial allergic rhinitis requiring pharmacotherapy were randomized and treated.

RESULTS

The mean change in total nasal symptom score from baseline at 30 minutes (the primary end point) showed greater improvement in the nasal carbon dioxide-treated groups compared with placebo. This change was statistically significant in the group treated with 10 mL/s for 10 seconds per nostril: -4.69 carbon dioxide vs -2.00 placebo (P = .03). The effect of a single dose lasted approximately 4 to 6 hours. The mean change from baseline at 30 minutes in total nonnasal symptom score was also statistically significant (-4.06 carbon dioxide vs -2.25 placebo, P = .029) for this group. The most common adverse events were nasal discomfort, lacrimation, and headache.

CONCLUSION

The study provides further evidence that nasal carbon dioxide is a potentially efficacious treatment for the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray reduces the ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), a potent intranasal corticosteroid with proved efficacy in relieving nasal allergic rhinitis symptoms, has demonstrated effectiveness in improving ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in retrospective analyses.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of MFNS in reducing total ocular symptom scores (TOSSs) and individual ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

METHODS

Subjects 12 years or older (n = 429) with moderate-to-severe baseline symptoms were randomized to MFNS, 200 microg once daily, or placebo in this 15-day, double-blind, parallel-group study. Subjects evaluated morning instantaneous TOSSs and daily reflective TOSSs, total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs; both instantaneous TNSSs and reflective TNSSs, respectively), and individual ocular and nasal symptoms. Mean changes from baseline averaged over days 2 to 15 (instantaneous) and days 1 to 15 (reflective) were calculated. Quality of life was assessed by using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

MFNS treatment yielded significant reductions from baseline versus placebo in instantaneous TOSSs (-0.34, P = .026, coprimary end point), instantaneous TNSSs (-0.88, P < .001, coprimary end point), reflective TOSSs (-0.44, P = .005), and reflective TNSSs (-1.06, P < .001). Significant decreases in all individual reflective ocular symptoms and instantaneous eye itching/burning and eye watering/tearing were observed for MFNS versus placebo (P < .05). Numeric improvements in instantaneous eye redness were seen but did not reach statistical significance. Improvements in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire total scores and individual symptom domains were achieved with MFNS treatment versus placebo (P < .001). MFNS was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This prospective study demonstrates that MFNS significantly reduces ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

Comparative safety and efficacy of 2 formulations of fluticasone aqueous nasal spray in persistent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

There are few data on the clinical equivalence of different nasal corticosteroids in persistent allergic rhinitis (AR). Studies measuring plasma concentrations after a single dose may not predict relative systemic bioactivity at steady state.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a test formulation of fluticasone propionate with the innovator using a noninferiority design.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with persistent AR were randomized to completion in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover manner to receive the formulations at 200 microg/d for 4 weeks, with baselines measured after 2-week run-in and washout periods. The primary outcome measure was the Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniRQLQ) score.

RESULTS

Both formulations produced significant improvements in MiniRQLQ scores as change from baseline (P < .001), with a nonsignificant mean difference (test vs innovator) of -0.06 U (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to 0.52 U) and the lower bound of the 95% CI being above the predefined noninferiority limit of -0.7 U. Both formulations produced significant improvements in peak nasal inspiratory flow rates as change from baseline (P < .01), with a nonsignificant mean difference of 0.5 L x min(-1) (95% CI, 9.8 to 10.8 L x min(-1)). There were also significant reductions in total nasal symptom scores (P < .01), with a nonsignificant mean difference of 0.4 U (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.1 U). No significant suppression of the 10-hour overnight urinary cortisol to creatinine ratio was seen with either formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The test formulation was noninferior to the innovator for the primary outcome of MiniRQLQ score. The secondary efficacy and safety end points also support the interchangeability of the 2 formulations.

Allergic rhinitis: treatment based on patient profiles

Allergic rhinitis is a common medical condition characterized by nasal, throat, and ocular itching; rhinorrhea; sneezing; nasal congestion; and, less frequently, cough. The treatment of allergic rhinitis should control these symptoms without adversely affecting daily activities or cognitive performance and should prevent sequelae such as asthma exacerbation or sinusitis. This review describes a stepwise approach to treatment of allergic rhinitis derived from a synthesis of clinical trial results, patient preferences, and real-world tolerability data. Key clinical considerations include frequency and intensity of symptoms, patient age, comorbidities, compliance with treatment regimens (influenced by formulation, route and frequency of administration), and effects on quality of life. Oral second-generation antihistamines, versus first-generation agents and inhaled corticosteroids, should be considered first-line treatment because they provide rapid relief of most allergic rhinitis symptoms without safety and tolerability issues. Additional therapeutic agents can then be added or substituted based on individual symptom response.

CT assessment of the effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray treatment on lower turbinate hypertrophy due to vasomotor rhinitis

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone propionate (FP) aqueous nasal spray was objectively found to be effective and safe for the treatment of lower turbinate enlargement in patients with vasomotor rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of FP aqueous nasal spray treatment in lower turbinate hypertrophy due to vasomotor rhinitis using CT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Of 35 patients with hypertrophic lower turbinates due to vasomotor rhinitis, 20 were treated twice daily with FP aqueous nasal spray (200 microg/day) for 3 months continuously and 15 were treated with placebo vehicle as a control group. The local effect of the nasal spray was studied using CT and visual analog scales.

RESULTS

Treatment with FP provided significantly greater relief from the symptom of nasal obstruction compared with placebo over the entire 3-month treatment period (p < 0.001). When the change from baseline was compared between the two groups, FP produced statistically significant reductions in the mucosal area of the lower turbinates and in the thickness of the nasal mucosa after 3 months (p < 0.05).

An intranasal Syk-kinase inhibitor (R112) improves the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis in a park environment

BACKGROUND

R112 inhibits Syk kinase, a transducer of signaling through the Fcepsilon receptor of mast cells, blocking mast cell responses to allergic stimuli.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the efficacy and safety of intranasal R112 in volunteers with symptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with a placebo in a park setting.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 319 volunteers with seasonal allergic rhinitis, 160 were randomized to intranasal R112 and 159 to a vehicle control during 2 days at 2 separate locations in spring 2004. Subjects were evaluated for symptoms of allergic rhinitis (i.e., sneezes, runny nose/sniffles, itchy nose, stuffy nose) on the basis of a possible maximum score of 32 for the Global Symptom Complex (GSC) scale. The primary outcome evaluated was the difference in the reduction in GSC (area under the curve over a period of 8 hours) from baseline between R112 and vehicle placebo.

RESULTS

At baseline, the combined GSC was approximately 18/32 and equal between treatment groups. After 8 hours (dosing 3 mg/nostril every 4 hours x 2), R112 significantly reduced the GSC compared with placebo (7 vs 5.4 units, respectively; P = .0005). Each individual symptom combined to form the GSC was also significantly improved in the R112 group compared with control ( P < .05). As early as 45 minutes after dosing, R112 showed a significant improvement in symptoms over placebo, and the duration of action exceeded 4 hours. Adverse effects were indistinguishable between the groups and clinically insignificant.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal R112 was effective in this park study and is a promising new treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Treatment with intranasal fluticasone propionate significantly improves ocular symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

If monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid can alleviate both nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis, treatment may be simplified and costs may be reduced.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of once-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) aqueous nasal spray 200 microg compared with vehicle placebo and oral loratadine (LOR) 10 mg in reducing ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A total of 471 patients received vehicle placebo, LOR, or FP in this multi-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized study. Patients were > or =12 years old with a history of seasonal allergic rhinitis and a positive skin test for a relevant allergen. During the baseline and treatment periods, patients rated the severity of eye itching, tearing, and redness via visual analogue scales that ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (most severe symptoms). The three ocular ratings were added to derive the total ocular symptom score (TOSS). Patients with a TOSS > or =120 on at least 4 of the 7 days before the randomization visit were enrolled. The primary outcome was the difference between FP and vehicle placebo in the mean change from baseline in the reflective TOSS overall (averaged over the 28-day treatment period). A difference between FP and vehicle placebo of 25.5 was considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

The overall mean change from baseline in the TOSS was significantly greater in the FP group compared with vehicle placebo (clinically significant difference of 28.8; P<0.001) and compared with LOR (difference of 16.2; P=0.028). Overall mean (SEM) changes were -59.9 (5.4) for the placebo group, -72.5 (5.4) for the LOR group, and -88.7 (5.3) for the FP group. The FP treatment group also showed significantly greater overall mean changes in ocular itching, tearing, and redness compared with vehicle placebo (P<0.001) and compared with LOR (P< or =0.045).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with intranasal FP had clinically and statistically significant decreases in ocular symptom scores compared with vehicle placebo. Data also suggest that FP reduced ocular symptoms more than or comparable with oral LOR. Patients experiencing ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis may benefit from monotherapy with intranasal FP.

Comparison of the effects of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and loratadine on daytime alertness and performance in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Concern has been directed at the relative sedating properties of lipophilic and lipophobic antihistamines, but few studies have sought to determine the comparative benefit of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatments in controlling symptoms and consequently improving alertness.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative contributions of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and loratadine in enhancing daytime performance in 8- to 17-year-old children.

METHODS

All participants had a documented history of SAR, positive response to a skin prick (wheal 3-mm greater than negative control or equal to the positive control) for seasonal aeroallergens, and clinically identifiable symptoms at the time of randomization. Following confirmation during baseline of current SAR symptoms, participants were randomized to 1 of the 2 treatments and returned 2 weeks later for evaluation of symptom control, quality of life, attention, reaction time, and memory.

RESULTS

Children in the fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray group but not the loratadine group demonstrated improvement in nasal symptoms, nasal quality of life score, and composite verbal memory. No differences were identified on any scores from the Conners Continuous Performance Test.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatments that most effectively control SAR symptoms are also likely to provide the greatest benefit to children whose daytime functioning, including their capacity to learn at school, is compromised by their illness.

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray improves nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis when used as needed (prn)

BACKGROUND

Few published clinical trials document the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids used as needed for treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 4 weeks' treatment with fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray 200 microg used as needed (FP200PRN) in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 241 patients (> or = 12 years of age) with a positive skin test result to a relevant fall allergen and who were symptomatic at randomization. The primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in total nasal symptom score (TNSS; the sum of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal itching, each rated on a 4-point scale from 0 = none to 3 = severe).

RESULTS

The mean percentage of days that patients used the study medications in the FP200PRN and placebo groups was 61.8% (SD = 30.4%) and 70.1% (SD = 28.3%), respectively. Patients treated with FP200PRN had a significantly greater reduction from baseline in TNSS compared with those treated with vehicle placebo (mean +/- SE = -2.02 +/- 0.18 vs -1.06 +/- 0.22, P < 0.001), representing a 91% greater improvement with FP200PRN than vehicle placebo. The FP200PRN group also had a significantly greater (P < 0.001) mean reduction in individual nasal symptoms of rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal itching, and nasal congestion compared with placebo. FP200PRN was well tolerated, with an incidence of adverse events comparable to vehicle placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

FP200PRN in patients 12 years and older is effective for treatment of nasal symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis. It has a lower incidence of adverse events than typically associated with regular once-daily use.

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray provided significantly greater improvement in daytime and nighttime nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with montelukast

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis is well documented in the literature. Additionally, an expert panel has concluded that intranasal corticosteroids are the first line of therapy when obstruction is a major component of rhinitis. Montelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist recently approved for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of a 15-day course of intranasal fluticasone propionate 200 microg, once daily (FP200QD), to oral montelukast 10 mg, once daily (MON10QD), in relieving daytime and nighttime nasal symptoms associated with SAR.

METHODS

The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population consisted of 705 eligible males and females (> or = 15 years) with SAR randomized to either FP200QD (N = 353) or MON10QD (N = 352). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in subject-rated daytime total nasal symptom scores (the sum of four individual scores: nasal congestion, itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing), evaluated via visual analog scales, and averaged over weeks 1 to 2. Secondary endpoints included the four daytime individual nasal symptom scores, the nighttime total, and individual nasal symptom scores (each evaluated on a four-point scale from 0 to 3).

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences favoring FP200QD over MON10QD were observed for the mean change from baseline in daytime total nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), daytime individual nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), nighttime total (P < 0.001), and all individual nasal symptom scores (P < or = 0.002) over the 15-day treatment period. FP200QD and MON10QD were both well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this well controlled study demonstrated that FP200QD was consistently superior to MON10QD with regard to every efficacy endpoint evaluated, including daytime and nighttime nasal congestion, in subjects with SAR.