Abstract
Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) patients often present with a predominant symptom. Nasal congestion and ocular symptoms have the greatest negative impact on patients’ quality of life [1]. Our aim was to assess the efficacy of MP29-02* (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride [AZE] and fluticasone propionate [FP] in an advanced delivery system) in seasonal AR (SAR) patients presenting with nasal congestion or ocular itch predominantly compared to AZE, FP or placebo (PLA) nasal sprays.
Highlights
Allergic rhinitis (AR) patients often present with a predominant symptom
Our aim was to assess the efficacy of MP29-02* in seasonal AR (SAR) patients presenting with nasal congestion or ocular itch predominantly compared to AZE, FP or placebo (PLA) nasal sprays
The level of ocular itch relief achieved by MP2902* patients on Day 2 (-0.93) was not achieved before Day 9 by FP patients or before Day 4 by AZE patients
Summary
Allergic rhinitis (AR) patients often present with a predominant symptom. Our aim was to assess the efficacy of MP29-02* (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride [AZE] and fluticasone propionate [FP] in an advanced delivery system) in seasonal AR (SAR) patients presenting with nasal congestion or ocular itch predominantly compared to AZE, FP or placebo (PLA) nasal sprays. The level of relief achieved by MP29-02* patients on Day 2 (-0.90) was not achieved before Day 9 by either FP or AZE patients. Ocular itch predominant MP29-02*-patients experienced 4 times the ocular itch relief as FP-patients (p=0.0026) and twice the relief provided by AZE (p=0.0551). The level of ocular itch relief achieved by MP2902* patients on Day 2 (-0.93) was not achieved before Day 9 by FP patients or before Day 4 by AZE patients
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
