AM-301, a barrier-forming nasal spray, versus saline spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized clinical trial

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
File version

Version of Record (VoR)

Author(s)
Becker, Sven
Deshmukh, Sachin
De Looze, Ferdinandus
Francardo, Veronica
Lee, Jessie
McGirr, Anthony
Nathan, Zachary
Rook, Christopher
Meyer, Thomas
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
2024
Size
File type(s)
Location
Abstract

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.

Journal Title

Allergy

Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume
Issue
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement

© 2024 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Item Access Status
Note

This publication has been entered in Griffith Research Online as an advance online version.

Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject
Persistent link to this record
Citation

Becker, S; Deshmukh, S; De Looze, F; Francardo, V; Lee, J; McGirr, A; Nathan, Z; Rook, C; Meyer, T, AM-301, a barrier-forming nasal spray, versus saline spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized clinical trial, Allergy, 2024

Collections