groups were simil both within and between studies . Patientsbaseline rTNSSs were well matched and conmed that the vast majority of these pa-tients had moderate-to-severe AR. Oues Ef acy in individual studies . In each study M signi antly reduced the mean rTNSS from baseline by a greater margin than azelasti or placebo . All individual nasal symptoms contributed to the effect . In each study all active treatments were statistically signi antly superior to place whereas M demonstrated superiority to all other treatment arms. Safety. For each stu the proportion of subjects with a treatment-emergent adverse event was  CDK Inhibitors similar for the active groups . The higher proportion of treatment-related ad-verse events observed in the M and azelastine treatment groups was due primarily to the taste of azelastine coded as dys-geusia in these patient but no patient discontinued therapy because of this event.

For all studi changes in vital signs and nasal examination were sim-ilar in all groups. Meta-analysis. rTNS iTNS individual symptom scor and rTOSSs: Change from baseline. Patients treated with M experienced signi antly greater nasal symptom relief than those treated with either monotherapy. Over the entire 4-day treatment peri M reduced the mean rTNSS from baseline to a signi antly greater degree than F azelastin or placebo . M had an onset of action of 0 minut and the clinical bene was observed during the st day of assessment and sustained over the entire course of treatment . M reduced the overall  Seliciclib iTNSS from baseline to a signi antly greater extent than F azelastin or placebo . M targeted all of the symptoms of AR .pared with FP or azelastine monothera patients who received M had greater relief from their symptoms of nasal congestio nasal itc rhinorrhe and sneezing . Patients treated with M also experienced superior relief from their ocular symptoms than those treated with FP alone. Over the entire 4-day treatment peri M reduced the mean rTOSS from baseline pared with F azelastin or placeb achieving statistical signi ance versus FP and pla-cebo .

CARR J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL nnn TABLE I. Baseline characteristics of study participants included in randomized trials Study MP M FP Azelastine Placebo Age s no. White ra no. History of SAR Study MP M FP Azelastine Placebo Age s no. White ra no. History of SAR Study MP M FP Azelastine Placebo Age s no. White ra no. History of SAR Data are presented as means unless otherwise stated. I Intent to treat. TABLE II. Total nasal symptom scores for randomized trials and the meta-analysis results Treatment No. Baseline Change from baseline Difference LS mean. Data are expressed as means . Difference from active treatment is given as LS mean treatment difference with associated  magazine 5 CIs and P values. A Azelastin. ticasone propionat. least squares; M , azelastine/F.