Allergy · 2024
AM-301, a barrier-forming nasal spray, versus saline spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Becker Sven, Deshmukh Sachin, De Looze Ferdinandus, Francardo Veronica, Lee Jessie, McGirr Anthony, Nathan Zachary, Rook Christopher, Meyer Thomas
Аннотация
RATIONALE: Saline nasal sprays are frequently used in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) for the cleansing and clearing of aeroallergens from the nasal cavity. Also using a drug-free approach, AM-301 nasal spray is forming a thin film barrier on the nasal mucosa to prevent contact with allergens, trap them, and facilitate their discharge. A clinical trial compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AM-301 and saline spray in SAR.
METHODS: A total of 100 patients were randomized 1:1 to self-administer AM-301 or saline 3 × daily for 2 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint: reduction in mean daily reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy endpoints: reduction in mean instantaneous TNSS and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), global impression of efficacy. Safety and tolerability: adverse events, relief medication use, symptom-free days, global impression of tolerability.
RESULTS: AM-301-treated patients achieved a significantly lower rTNSS than the saline group (LS square means difference -1.1, 95% CI -1.959 to -0.241, p = .013) with improvement observed across all individual nasal symptoms. Likewise, all secondary endpoints showed statistical significance in favor of AM-301; for example, quality of life was significantly improved overall (p < .001) as well as for each individual RQLQ domain. Both treatments showed similarly good safety and tolerability. With AM-301, fewer patients used relief medication and more enjoyed symptom-free days compared to saline treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: AM-301 was more effective than saline in improving SAR nasal symptoms and related quality of life while offering similar tolerability, demonstrating the benefits of a barrier approach.
METHODS: A total of 100 patients were randomized 1:1 to self-administer AM-301 or saline 3 × daily for 2 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint: reduction in mean daily reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy endpoints: reduction in mean instantaneous TNSS and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), global impression of efficacy. Safety and tolerability: adverse events, relief medication use, symptom-free days, global impression of tolerability.
RESULTS: AM-301-treated patients achieved a significantly lower rTNSS than the saline group (LS square means difference -1.1, 95% CI -1.959 to -0.241, p = .013) with improvement observed across all individual nasal symptoms. Likewise, all secondary endpoints showed statistical significance in favor of AM-301; for example, quality of life was significantly improved overall (p < .001) as well as for each individual RQLQ domain. Both treatments showed similarly good safety and tolerability. With AM-301, fewer patients used relief medication and more enjoyed symptom-free days compared to saline treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: AM-301 was more effective than saline in improving SAR nasal symptoms and related quality of life while offering similar tolerability, demonstrating the benefits of a barrier approach.