Abstract
Background Four previously published trials assessed the efficacy of MP29-02* (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in an advanced delivery system) in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) [1,2]. The first study compared MP29-02* to marketed AZE and FP [2]. The others compared MP29-02* to AZE and FP in the MP29-02* vehicle and delivery device (i.e. re-formulated comparators) [1]. FP contained within MP29-02* has a unique PK fingerprint [3]. The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate that formulation/device contribute to MP29-02*’s clinical efficacy.
Highlights
Four previously published trials assessed the efficacy of MP29-02* (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in an advanced delivery system) in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) [1,2]
The formulation/device effect of MP29-02* was quantified by comparing treatment differences obtained with MP29-02* vs marketed FP and MP29-02* vs reformulated FP for these endpoints
For all efficacy variables assessed, the treatment difference was greater for MP29-02* vs marketed-FP than for MP2902* vs re-formulated-FP
Summary
Four previously published trials assessed the efficacy of MP29-02* (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in an advanced delivery system) in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) [1,2]. The first study compared MP29-02* to marketed AZE and FP [2]. The others compared MP29-02* to AZE and FP in the MP29-02* vehicle and delivery device (i.e. re-formulated comparators) [1]. FP contained within MP29-02* has a unique PK fingerprint [3]. The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate that formulation/device contribute to MP29-02*’s clinical efficacy
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
