RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in a single spray (MP-AzeFlu) was compared with a first-line intranasal antihistamine spray (AZE) in Russian seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients. METHODS: Moderate-to-severe SAR/rhinoconjunctivitis patients (n = 149; aged 18-65 years) were randomized to receive MP-AzeFlu (137/50 µg AZE/FP per spray) or AZE (137 µg/spray), both as 1 spray/nostril twice daily, in a multicenter, open-label, 14-day, parallel-group trial. The primary outcome was change from baseline in morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS). Secondary end points included: change from baseline in reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), reflective total of 7 symptom scores (rT7SS), 28-item Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) overall score, and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire score. RESULTS: When compared with AZE-treated patients, those treated with MP-AzeFlu experienced significantly greater reductions in rTNSS (difference: -2.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.65 to -1.30; p < 0.001), rTOSS (difference: -1.62; 95% CI -2.32 to -0.92; p < 0.001), and rT7SS (difference: -4.34; 95% CI -5.98 to -2.70; p < 0.001). Superior relief observed on day 2 with MP-AzeFlu versus AZE was sustained throughout the study. MP-AzeFlu-treated patients experienced a greater improvement in QoL than AZE-treated patients as measured by overall RQLQ score (mean ± SD 2.91 ± 1.08 vs. 2.05 ± 1.15) and EQ-5D score (mean ± SD 87.4 ± 10.3 vs. 83.0 ± 12.8). MP-AzeFlu was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: MP-AzeFlu was superior to AZE in reducing moderate-to-severe SAR symptoms, providing earlier and more complete symptom relief.