Quantitative proton nuclear magnetic resonance method for simultaneous analysis of fluticasone propionate and azelastine hydrochloride in nasal spray formulation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: El-Masry AA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8278066 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The safety of a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) has been established in adults and adolescents with allergic rhinitis but not in children <12 years old. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the safety and tolerability of an intranasal formulation of AZE and FP in children ages 4-11 years with allergic rhinitis. METHODS:The study was a randomized, 3-month, parallel-group, open-label design. Qualified patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to AZE/FP (n = 304) or fluticasone propionate (FP) (n = 101), one spray per nostril twice daily, and to one of three age groups: ?4 to <6 years, ?6 to <9 years, and ?9 to <12 years. Safety was assessed by child- or caregiver-reported adverse events, nasal examinations, vital signs, and laboratory assessments. RESULTS:The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was low in both the AZE/FP (16%) and FP-only (12%) groups after 90 days' continuous use. Epistaxis was the most frequently reported TRAE in both groups (AZE/FP, 9%; FP, 9%), followed by headache (AZE/FP, 3%; FP, 1%). All other TRAEs in the AZE/FP group were reported by ?1% of the children. The majority of TRAEs were of mild intensity and resolved spontaneously. Results of nasal examinations showed an improvement over time in both groups, with no cases of mucosal ulceration or nasal septal perforation. There were no unusual or unexpected changes in laboratory parameters or vital signs. CONCLUSION:The intranasal formulation of AZE and FP was safe and well tolerated after 3 months' continuous use in children with allergic rhinitis.The study was registered on <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ClinicalTrials.gov">ClinicalTrials.gov</ext-link> (NCT01794741).
| S-EPMC5827154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:What is already known about this subject• The topical second generation anti-histamine azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and the potent corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP) are well established first-line treatments in allergic rhinitis (AR). • MP29-02, a novel intranasal AZE and FP formulation, has been shown to control AR symptoms faster and better than standard intranasal AZE or FP. • The systemic bioavailabilities of marketed AZE and FP nasal spray products have been established at about 40% and 1% only, respectively. • For new combination medicinal products such as MP29-02, the determination of possible pharmacokinetic (PK) drug-drug interactions between both active components and formulation-based bioavailability alterations is essential.What this study adds• This paper provides for the first time information on potential drug-drug interactions, AZE and FP bioavailability and disposition characteristics of each component administered by the novel nasal spray formulation MP29-02. • The studies employed highly sensitive FP and AZE LC-MS/MS assays and could therefore be conducted with recommended therapeutic doses, thereby circumventing previously recognized draw-backs that required nasal bioavailability studies to be conducted using supra-therapeutic doses. • No significant PK drug-drug interaction between the active components AZE and FP was noted for MP29-02. • AZE bioavailabilty was equivalent when MP29-02 data were compared with MP29-02-AZE-mono and Astelin®. • Increased FP exposure was observed with MP29-02-based products compared with FP-BI. FP serum concentrations were generally very low with all investigational products suggesting no clinically meaningful pharmacodynamic differences in terms of systemic safety.Aim(s)To determine azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) bioavailabilities of the novel nasal spray combination product MP 29-02, compared with MP29-02-based products containing only AZE (MP29-02-AZE-mono), FP (MP29-02-FP-mono), marketed AZE and FP single entity products (Astelin® and FP Boehringer-Ingelheim; FP-BI).MethodsTwo randomized, three period, six sequence, three treatment crossover studies were conducted in healthy subjects. Study 1 administered 200 µg FP as MP29-02, MP29-02-FP-mono or FP-BI. Study 2 administered 548 µg AZE as MP29-02, MP29-02-AZE-mono or Astelin®. Each dose consisted of two sprays/nostril. Serum FP and plasma AZE were followed over 24 (FP) and 120 h (AZE) and quantified by LC-MS/MS. Peak (C(max) ) and total exposures AUC(0,t(last) ) were compared between the treatments by anova.ResultsStudy 1: Average FP C(max) was very low with all products (≤ 10 pg ml(-1) ). FP AUC(0,t(last) ) point estimates (90% CIs) for MP29-02 : MP29-02-FP-mono and MP29-02 : FP-BI ratios (%) were 93.6 (83.6, 104.7) and 161.1 (137.1, 189.3). Corresponding ratios for C(max) were 91.0 (82.5, 100.4) and 157.4 (132.5, 187.1). Study 2: AZE AUC(0,t(last) ) point estimates (90% CIs) for MP29-02 : MP29-02-AZE-mono and MP29-02 : Astelin® ratios (%) were 98.8 (91.0, 107.4) and 105.5 (95.6, 116.4). Corresponding outcomes for C(max) were 102.7 (92.1, 114.4) and 107.3 (92.6, 124.3).ConclusionsNo interactions of AZE and FP were found with the MP29-02 formulation. Azelastine bioavailability was similar for MP29-02 and Astelin®. Maximum and total FP exposure was higher for MP29-02-based products compared with FP-BI. FP concentrations were generally very low with all investigational products and did not suggest clinically meaningful differences concerning systemic safety.
| S-EPMC3394136 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe combination of the antihistamine azelastine (AZE) with the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP) in a single spray, has been reported to be significantly more effective at reducing allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms than treatment with either corticosteroid or antihistamine monotherapy. However, the biological basis for enhanced symptom relief is not known. This study aimed to compare gene expression profiles (760 immune genes, performed with the NanoString nCounter) from peripheral blood and nasal brushing/lavage lysate samples in response to nasal spray treatment.MethodsModerate/severe persistent dust mite AR sufferers received either AZE (125 μg/spray) nasal spray (n = 16), FP (50 μg/spray) nasal spray (n = 14) or combination spray AZE/FP (125 μg AZE and 50 μg FP/spray) (n = 14) for 7 days, twice daily. Self-reported symptom questionnaires were completed daily for the study duration. Gene expression analysis (760 immune genes) was performed with the NanoString nCounter on purified RNA from peripheral blood and nasal brushing/lavage lysate samples.ResultsIn nasal samples, 206 genes were significantly differentially expressed following FP treatment; 182 genes downregulated (-2.57 to -0.45 Log2 fold change [FC]), 24 genes upregulated (0.49-1.40 Log2 FC). In response to AZE/FP, only 16 genes were significantly differentially expressed; 10 genes downregulated (-1.53 to -0.58 Log2 FC), six genes upregulated (1.07-1.62 Log2 FC). Following AZE treatment only five genes were significantly differentially expressed; one gene downregulated (-1.68 Log2 FC), four genes upregulated (0.59-1.19 Log2 FC). Immune gene changes in peripheral blood samples following treatment were minimal. AR symptoms improved under all treatments, but improvements were less pronounced following AZE treatment.ConclusionAZE/FP, FP, and AZE had diverse effects on immune gene expression profiles in nasal mucosa samples. The moderate number of genes modulated by AZE/FP indicates alternative pathways in reducing AR symptoms whilst avoiding extensive local immune suppression.
| S-EPMC8926499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aims of this study were (1) to characterise the type of patient prescribed MP-AzeFlu (Dymista, a novel formulation of azelastine hydrochloride, fluticasone propionate and excipients in a single spray) in real life in the UK and physicians' reasons for prescribing it and (2) to quantify the personal and societal burden of allergic rhinitis (AR) in the UK prior to MP-AzeFlu prescription.Design, setting and participantsThis multicentre, non-interventional study enrolled patients (n=193) with moderate-to-severe AR and acute symptoms who were eligible to receive treatment with MP-AzeFlu according to its licensed indications. Information was gathered on patient demographics, AR history and symptom severity, symptomatology and AR treatments in the previous calendar year (prior to MP-AzeFlu prescription). Physicians also recorded the number of previous AR visits, specific reasons for these visits and their reason for prescribing MP-AzeFlu.ResultsMost patients had seasonal AR either alone (10.4%) or in combination with perennial AR (35.2%), but many had AR of unknown origin (35.8%). Prior to MP-AzeFlu prescription, patients reported troublesome symptoms (78.2%) and sleep disturbance (64.8%), with congestion considered the most bothersome (54.4%) and ocular symptoms reported by 68.4% of patients. The most frequent reason for MP-AzeFlu prescription was that other therapies were not sufficient in the past (78.8%) or not sufficient to treat acute symptoms (16.1%). 79.3% of patients reported using ?2 AR therapies in the past year. An average of 1.6 (SD 1.9) doctor visits due to AR were reported prior to MP-AzeFlu prescription.ConclusionsIn the UK, MP-AzeFlu was prescribed for individuals (?12?years) with moderate/severe AR irrespective of (1) previous AR treatment (mono or multiple), (2) previous or likely treatment failure, (3) phenotype, (4) number of previous physician visits for AR and (5) for the relief of both acute symptoms and in anticipation of allergen exposure.
| S-EPMC5775468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:MP-AzeFlu, intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP), is superior to AZE or FP alone for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the precise anti-inflammatory mechanism of action of MP-AzeFlu has not been characterized. Objective:To investigate the anti-inflammatory effects of MP-AzeFlu compared with AZE or FP alone in an established in vitro model of eosinophilic inflammation. Methods:Nasal mucosal epithelial cells and peripheral blood eosinophils were obtained from human volunteers. Epithelial cells were stimulated with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) in the presence of MP-AzeFlu, AZE, or FP (1:102 to 1:105 dilution). Concentrations of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) were measured by ELISA. Eosinophils were incubated in 10% human epithelial cell-conditioned medium (HECM) and survival assessed by trypan blue dye exclusion. Results are expressed as mean?±?SEM percentage secretion/survival compared with FBS/HECM (respectively). Results:FP and MP-AzeFlu (all dilutions) and AZE (1:102) significantly reduced IL-6 secretion and eosinophil survival compared with positive controls. At 1:102 dilution, IL-6 secretion was significantly lower with MP-AzeFlu (38.3?±?4.2%, compared with FBS?=?100%) than with AZE (76.1?±?4.9%) or FP (53.0?±?4.9%). At 1:102 dilution, eosinophil survival was significantly lower with MP-AzeFlu at day 3 (17.5?±?3.0%) and day 4 (2.4?±?1.4%, compared with HECM?=?100%) than with AZE (day 3: 75.2?±?7.2%; day 4: 44.0?±?9.7%) or FP (day 3: 38.5?±?3.5%; day 4: 14.6?±?4.0%). Conclusion:Greater reductions in cytokine secretion and eosinophil survival observed with MP-AzeFlu in vitro may underlie MP-AzeFlu's superior clinical efficacy vs. AZE or FP alone observed in AR patients.
| S-EPMC6299636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives. Allergic rhinitis is a common disease with increasing prevalence and high impact on economic burden and comorbidities. As treatment with pharmacological drugs is not always satisfactory due to side effects and incomplete efficacy, alternative treatment strategies are needed. Ectoine is an osmolyte with membrane stabilizing and inflammation reducing capacities. Nasal spray and eye drops containing ectoine are promising new treatment regimens for allergic rhinitis sufferers. Design and Methods. The current two noninterventional trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops for treating allergic rhinitis in comparison with either azelastine or cromoglycic acid containing products. Nasal and ocular symptom developments as well as judgment of tolerability and efficacy were assessed both by investigators and patients over a time period of one to two weeks. Results. Both trials confirmed that ectoine containing products reduced nasal and ocular symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients. Results clearly demonstrated good safety profiles of the ectoine products comparable to those of azelastine and even better to those of cromoglycate products. Conclusion. Ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops are interesting new treatment strategies for sufferers of allergic rhinitis, combining both good efficacy and absence of side effects.
| S-EPMC4058592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrom the first detection in 2019, SARS-CoV-2 infections have spread rapidly worldwide and have been proven to cause an urgent and important health problem. SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on two proteins present on the surface of host cells, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2). The nasal cavity is thought to be one of the initial sites of infection and a possible reservoir for dissemination within and between individuals. However, it is not known how the expression of these genes is regulated in the nasal mucosa.ObjectiveIn this study, we examined whether the expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 is affected by innate immune signals in the nasal mucosa. We also investigated how fluticasone propionate (FP), a corticosteroid used as an intranasal steroid spray, affects the gene expression.MethodsPrimary human nasal epithelial cells (HNECs) were collected from the nasal mucosa and incubated with Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists and/or fluticasone propionate (FP), followed by quantitative PCR, immunofluorescence, and immunoblot analyses.ResultsAmong the TLR agonists, the TLR3 agonist Poly(I:C) significantly increased ACE2 and TMPRSS2 mRNA expression in HNECs (ACE2 36.212±11.600-fold change, p<0.0001; TMPRSS2 5.598±2.434-fold change, p=0.031). The ACE2 protein level was also increased with Poly(I:C) stimulation (2.884±0.505-fold change, p=0.003). The Poly(I:C)-induced ACE2 expression was suppressed by co-incubation with FP (0.405±0.312-fold change, p=0.044).ConclusionThe activation of innate immune signals via TLR3 promotes the expression of genes related to SARS-CoV2 cell entry in the nasal mucosa, although this expression is suppressed in the presence of FP. Further studies are required to evaluate whether FP suppresses SARS-CoV-2 viral cell entry.
| S-EPMC8107375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the changing epidemiology of COVID-19 and its impact on our daily lives, there is still an unmet need of COVID-19 therapies treating early infections to prevent progression. The current study was a randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ninety SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were randomized into 3 groups receiving placebo, 0.02% or 0.1% azelastine nasal spray for 11 days, during which viral loads were assessed by quantitative PCR. Investigators assessed patients' status throughout the trial including safety follow-ups (days 16 and 60). Symptoms were documented in patient diaries. Initial viral loads were log10 6.85 ± 1.31 (mean ± SD) copies/mL (ORF 1a/b gene). After treatment, virus load was reduced in all groups (p < 0.0001) but was greater in the 0.1% group compared to placebo (p = 0.007). In a subset of patients (initial Ct < 25) viral load was strongly reduced on day 4 in the 0.1% group compared to placebo (p = 0.005). Negative PCR results appeared earlier and more frequently in the azelastine treated groups: being 18.52% and 21.43% in the 0.1% and 0.02% groups, respectively, compared to 0% for placebo on day 8. Comparable numbers of adverse events occurred in all treatment groups with no safety concerns. The shown effects of azelastine nasal spray may thus be suggestive of azelastine's potential as an antiviral treatment.Trial registration: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00024520; Date of Registration in DRKS: 12/02/2021). EudraCT number: 2020-005544-34.
| S-EPMC10132439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Of the classes of pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis, intranasal corticosteroids are the preferred treatment and are recommended in practice guidelines as first-line pharmacotherapy for rhinitis with prominent nasal congestion. The enhanced-affinity intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone furoate nasal spray (GW685698X), is one of the newest additions to the armamentarium for allergic rhinitis. This review summarizes the preclinical and clinical data on fluticasone furoate nasal spray and discusses its place in pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Important attributes of fluticasone furoate in seasonal allergic rhinitis include low systemic bioavailability (<0.5%), onset of symptom relief as early as eight hours after initiation of treatment, 24-hour symptom relief with once-daily dosing, comprehensive coverage of both nasal and ocular symptoms, safety and tolerability with daily use, and availability in a side-actuated device that makes medication delivery simple and consistent. With these attributes, fluticasone furoate nasal spray has the potential to enhance patient satisfaction and compliance and reduce the need for polypharmacy in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
| S-EPMC3047912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe safety and efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) for the symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis have been previously demonstrated in several clinical studies. The objective of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FFNS 110 mcg once daily with placebo in patients with irritant (non-allergic) rhinitis triggered predominantly by air pollution.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-week study of subjects in Thailand with irritant rhinitis who received either FFNS 110 mcg (N=53) or placebo (N=49) once-daily. Subjects with a ≥2 year history of air pollution as their predominant rhinitis trigger, negative skin test to local seasonal/perennial allergens, positive histamine skin test, and normal sinus radiograph were enrolled if they met minimum reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) ≥4.5 (maximum=9) and a nasal congestion score of ≥2 (maximum =3). All were assessed for nasal eosinophilia at study entry and completion. Air quality was monitored throughout the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline over the treatment period in daily rTNSS, the average of the morning and evening rTNSS. The key secondary measure was the mean change from baseline over the entire treatment period in morning pre-dose instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS).ResultsThe Air Quality Index (AQI) during the study generally did not reach unhealthy levels. Baseline daily rTNSS scores were similar between treatment groups (FFNS=6.7; placebo=6.4). The least square mean change from baseline in rTNSS was -2.17 and -2.10 for FFNS and placebo, respectively, with a difference of -0.065 (p=0.845). Gradual improvements were seen in both treatment groups for iTNSS; however, the treatment difference (-0.075) was not statistically significant (p=0.827). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for AM and PM rTNSS, individual nasal symptoms, daily reflective, AM and PM reflective and AM pre-dose instantaneous total ocular symptom scores (TOSS) or individual ocular symptom scores. Nasal cytology at baseline found more than two-thirds of subjects had <20% eosinophils. Adverse events were few and similar between groups and noted as mild in intensity.ConclusionSubjects receiving FFNS had similar improvement to placebo in their rhinitis symptoms. The lack of a treatment effect may be in part due to the overall good air quality present throughout the study or an insufficient dose or duration of FFNS. The safety findings showed FFNS 110 mcg once daily to be well tolerated.
| S-EPMC3023068 | biostudies-literature