Skip to content


  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

MP29-02*’s advanced delivery system contributes to its efficacy in patients with moderate/severe seasonal allergic rhinitis

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 5 and
  • 6
Clinical and Translational Allergy20155 (Suppl 4) :P36

  • Published:


  • Allergic Rhinitis
  • Fluticasone
  • Fluticasone Propionate
  • Nasal Spray
  • Nasal Symptom


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.


Four thousand and five moderate/severe SAR patients (≥12 yrs old) were randomized into 4 double-blind, placebo (PLA)-controlled trials. Each trial comprised 4 groups: MP29-02*, AZE, FP and PLA nasal sprays, and was conducted for 14 days. Total daily dose of AZE and FP were 548 µg and 200 µg, respectively. Change from baseline (CFB) in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) over 14-days was the primary outcome. CFB in reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS) and individual nasal and ocular symptoms was assessed secondarily. Time to achieve at least a 50% rTNSS reduction from baseline was assessed post-hoc by Kaplan Meier estimates and log rank tests. The formulation/device effect of MP29-02* was quantified by comparing treatment differences obtained with MP29-02* vs marketed FP and MP29-02* vs re-formulated FP for these endpoints.


For all efficacy variables assessed, the treatment difference was greater for MP29-02* vs marketed-FP than for MP29-02* vs re-formulated-FP. For rTNSS, the difference between MP29-02* and marketed-FP was -1.47, compared to -0.76 vs reformulated-FP; a formulation/device effect of 0.71. Similarly for rTOSS a formulation/device effect of 0.70 was observed. A formulation/device effect was observed for relief of all individual nasal and ocular symptoms (e.g. 0.23 effect for congestion; 0.34 effect for ocular itching). Finally, MP29-02*-patients achieved a ≥50% rTNSS reduction ≤6 days faster than marketed-FP and ≤3 days faster than reformulated-FP, a formulation/device effect of ≤3 days.


Formulation and device contribute to MP29-02*’s superior efficacy over currently considered firstline therapy, making MP29-02* a new class of treatment for AR.


Authors’ Affiliations

The Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK
Department of Oto-Rhinolaryngology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
Dept of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Meda, Corporate Clinical Affairs, Bad Homburg, Germany
University of Cologne, IMSIE, Cologne, Germany


  1. Carr W, Bernstein P, Lieberman , Meltzer E, Bachert C, Price D, et al: JACI. 2012, 129 (5): 1282-1289.Google Scholar
  2. Meltzer E, Ratner P, Bachert C, Carr W, Berger W, Canonica GW, et al: Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013, 161 (4): 369-377. 10.1159/000351404.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Derendorf H, Munzel U, Petzold U, Maus J, Mascher H, Hermann R, et al: Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013, 74 (1): 125-133.Google Scholar


© Scadding et al. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.