Bioavailability and disposition of azelastine and fluticasone propionate when delivered by MP29-02, a novel aqueous nasal spray.

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). METHODS: Two 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. RESULTS: Study 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). CONCLUSIONS: No 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.

Prevention of exercise-induced asthma by a fixed combination of disodium cromoglycate plus reproterol compared with montelukast in young patients.

BACKGROUND: The leukotriene inhibitor montelukast has been recommended against exercise-induced asthma (EIA), however, single-dose agents might be favourable in several aspects. OBJECTIVE: To compare the protective effects against EIA of a single inhalation of the combination disodium cromoglycate (DSCG, CAS 16110-51-3) and reproterol (REP, CAS 54063-54-6) with 3 days oral treatment of montelukast (MON, CAS 158966-92-8). METHODS: Open-label, cross-over, single-centre trial. Twenty-four 6 to 18-year-old children and adolescents, with reversible and stable airway obstruction, baseline FEV1 > or = 70%, predicted and proven EIA (i.e. a maximum decrease of FEV1 by > or = 20% compared with baseline) were treated with MON, orally for 3 days in the evening, or one single inhalation of DSCG/REP 20 min before the exercise challenge. The treatment sequence was randomised. The exercise test on a treadmill was performed under standardised conditions. RESULTS: 24 patients completed both periods. Both treatments clearly provided protection against EIA; however, protection of DSCG/REP was more pronounced than that of MON. This difference was statistically significant even if the data were adjusted for the increase in FEV1 between inhalation of DSCG/REP and challenge (DSCG/REP(adjusted). The nadir FEV1 level after exercise following prophylaxis with DSCG/REP was even higher than the pre-inhalation FEV1 value. From these data, protection indices of 66%, 81%, and 113% for MON, DSCG/REP(adjusted), and DSCG/REP(unadjusted), respectively, were estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Inhalation of DSCG/REP before exercise provides significantly better protection against EIA than three days treatment with MON.

Single-dose pharmacokinetics and safety pharmacodynamics of formoterol delivered by two different dry powder inhalers.

The present study aimed at assessing the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety pharmacodynamics (PD) of 24 microg formoterol delivered via a Novolizer and via an Aerolizer in healthy subjects. This was a randomized, open-label, crossover study. Beside PK, serum potassium, and glucose profiles, vital signs, and ECG were recorded. Twenty-nine subjects (15 males) were enrolled. The inhalation maneuver had to be repeated by 19 subjects using the Aerolizer and 1 subject using a Novolizer. While eight (28%) subjects completely failed to inhale correctly via the Aerolizer (four were identified by the investigators immediately after inhalation, another four by bioanalytics later), all did it correctly via the Novolizer. The bioanalytical evaluation indicated two distinct serum peaks. The shapes of serum concentration-time profiles were more homogeneous after inhaling via the Novolizer than via the Aerolizer. After adjusting for the delivered dose the Cmax of formoterol predicting pulmonary absorption was higher after the Novolizer than after the Aerolizer, while the average AUC0-infinity levels indicating total systemic exposure were equivalent. There was no evidence for different pharmacodynamic behavior with respect to serum potassium and glucose profiles, vital signs, and ECG. The Novolizer yields higher pulmonary absorption of formoterol than the Aerolizer and equivalent safety profiles. Considering the lower variability of PK profiles and the higher proportion of correct inhalations, formoterol is more reliably inhaled via Novolizer.

Synergistic effects of the anti-cholinergic R,R-glycopyrrolate with anti-inflammatory drugs.

Currently, much effort is geared towards developing therapies that impact on the inflammation in respiratory diseases such as asthma and COPD, assuming that this will improve disease pathology. R,R-Glycopyrrolate, a quaternary ammonium compound, is a muscarinic receptor antagonist with the potential to be used as a long-acting bronchodilator in patients with asthma and COPD. In this study we evaluated whether the combination of R,R-glycopyrrolate with known anti-inflammatory drugs results in synergistic effects. Human primary monocytes were used as an in vitro model system. M3, M4, M1 and M2 receptors were expressed in these cells in descending order. The combinatory effects of the drugs on the release of TNF-alpha after lipopolysaccharide stimulation were analyzed. R,R-Glycopyrrolate alone did not affect LPS induced TNF-alpha release. The PDE4 inhibitor rolipram dose dependently inhibited the TNF-alpha release. Maximum inhibition was around 70%. The IC(35) for rolipram was 68.9+/-15.2 nM. The simultaneous administration of 10 microM R,R-glycopyrrolate reduced the IC(35) to 1.70+/-1.18 nM. The anti-histamine azelastine inhibited TNF-alpha release dose dependently. The simultaneous administration of R,R-glycopyrrolate did not influence the action of azelastine. The corticosteroid budesonide inhibited the TNF-alpha release dose dependently with an IC(50) of 0.55+/-0.13 nM. The simultaneous administration of 10 microM R,R-glycopyrrolate reduced the IC(50) to 0.13+/-0.03 nM. Finally, R,R-glycopyrrolate was most effective in the triple combination with budesonide and rolipram in the reduction of TNF-alpha release. In conclusion, R,R-glycopyrrolate acts synergistically with the PDE4 inhibitor rolipram and the steroid budesonide in inhibiting inflammatory mediators.

Azelastine nasal spray and desloratadine tablets in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis: a pharmacodynamic study of onset of action and efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and onset of action of azelastine nasal spray and desloratadine tablets in patients with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 46 adult patients with a history of SAR were exposed to a controlled grass pollen concentration for 6 h in the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC) in each treatment period according to a randomised, double-blind (double-dummy), three-period, three-sequence crossover design (wash-out period of 12 days). Single doses of study medication (one puff nasal spray into each nostril of azelastine, 0.2 mg, or placebo before swallowing one encapsulated tablet of desloratadine, 5 mg) were administered 2 h after the start of the allergen challenge. Results of subjective and objective assessments were recorded throughout the challenge. RESULTS: Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray was significantly superior compared to desloratadine tablets (p = 0.005) and placebo (p < 0.001). Desloratadine was significantly better than placebo (p < 0.001). Decrease both in Major Nasal Symptom Score (MNSS) and in Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) was fastest after azelastine treatment. Improvement of nasal symptom severity was most pronounced after azelastine treatment for all nasal symptoms including nasal congestion. Onset of action was 15 min for azelastine compared to 150 min for desloratadine. Both active preparations were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the usefulness of azelastine nasal spray for the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Concerning onset of action in particular, the results favour the topical treatment over systemic therapy.

Azelastine eye drops in the treatment of perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

Azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8) is a selective H1-receptor antagonist that inhibits histamine release and interferes with activation of other mediators of allergic inflammation. The present double-blind study aimed to evaluate azelastine eye drops (Allergodil) in patients with perennial allergic conjunctivitis compared to placebo. A total of 116 patients with an ocular symptoms score for itching and conjunctival redness > or = 3 (0-6 scale) were randomized to twice-daily 0.05% azelastine eye drops treatment (n = 58) or placebo. Patients maintained daily logs and were clinically evaluated after 7, 21 and 42 days of treatment. Azelastine significantly improved itching and conjunctival redness versus placebo (p < 0.001). Tolerability was rated good or better by 97% of patients with only bitter taste and application site reaction notable adverse experiences. On Day 7, ocular symptoms score improved by 1.5 +/- 0.9 (versus 0.5 +/- 0.8 placebo) with score improvement > or = 2 in 55% with azelastine (versus 14% placebo). Itching and redness further improved at Day 42 (score improvement > or = 2 in 95% with azelastine versus 33% placebo) and completely resolved for 47% azelastine patients (versus 10% placebo). Daily patient logs confirmed the clinically assessed scores. Topical azelastine progressively improved itching and conjunctival redness in patients with moderate to severe perennial allergic conjunctivitis. Continued improvement with prolonged use is consistent with mechanisms other than H1-receptor blockade, such as possible down regulation of adhesion molecule receptors.