***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Background : A prospect i ve , cross‐sectional , international survey was conducted among patients and physicians to identify symptom perception and the impact of allergic rhinitis ( AR ) on health‐related quality of life ( HRQoL ) . This paper presents the results from the USA Abstract Objective : Some patients with allergic rhinitis ( AR ) may prefer nonaqueous intranasal corticosteroid aerosols because of unwanted attributes of aqueous formulations . The m and atory removal of chlorofluorocarbon-propelled nonaqueous aerosols from the market limited available treatment options . To fulfill this unmet need , a nonaqueous , hydrofluoroalkane-propelled beclomethasone dipropionate ( BDP ) nasal aerosol was developed and approved for treatment of AR nasal symptoms . As part of the development program , this dose-ranging study evaluated three doses of BDP nasal aerosol to determine the optimally safe and effective dose for adolescent and adult patients ( ≥12 years old ) with seasonal AR ( SAR ) . Methods : After a 7 to 21 day placebo run-in period , eligible patients with SAR were r and omly assigned to once-daily BDP nasal aerosol 80 µg , 160 µg , 320 µg , or placebo . The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in average a.m. and p.m. patient-reported reflective total nasal symptom scores ( rTNSS ) over 2 weeks . Safety and tolerability were also assessed . A potential study limitation could be lack of objective assessment of AR symptoms . Results : Significant improvements were seen in average a.m. and p.m. rTNSS ( least squares [ LS ] mean treatment difference , −0.63 ; 95 % CI : −1.13 , −0.13 ; p = 0.013 ) as well as in average a.m. and p.m. instantaneous TNSS ( iTNSS ; LS mean treatment difference , −0.60 ; 95 % CI : −1.09 , −0.11 ; p = 0.016 ) with BDP nasal aerosol 320 µg/day compared with placebo . Although there were numerical improvements from baseline in patient-reported rTNSS and iTNSS with BDP nasal aerosol 80 µg and 160 µg , these doses did not achieve statistical significance compared with placebo . BDP nonaqueous nasal aerosol was well tolerated at all doses tested , with a safety profile comparable to that of placebo . Conclusions : These data indicate that 320 µg/day of BDP nasal aerosol is the optimally safe and effective dose for the treatment of SAR in adolescent and adult patients . Trial registration NCT : # NCT00854360 Background A new , hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol solution formulation of ciclesonide ( CIC-HFA ) delivered via a metered dose inhaler is currently in clinical development for treatment of allergic rhinitis . Objective To study tolerability and quality of life following administration of CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses once-daily compared with placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis ( PAR ) over 26 weeks . Methods Patients ≥12 years of age with a ≥2 year history of PAR were r and omized in a placebo-controlled , double-blind , parallel group , multicenter study to CIC-HFA 74 μg , 148 μg , or placebo QD AM for 26 weeks . Safety was assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events ( TEAEs ) . Quality of life was assessed by using a rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life question naire with st and ardized activities ( RQLQ[S ] ) in patients with baseline RQLQ ≥3.00  . Reflective total nasal symptom scores ( rTNSS ) and instantaneous total nasal symptom scores ( iTNSS ) over 26 weeks were also evaluated . Results In this study , 1111 patients were r and omized . The overall incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the treatment groups . Treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses showed improvements in RQLQ[S ] [ least squares ( LS ) mean change 0.40 and 0.37 , respectively from baseline , p < 0.01 versus placebo for both ] , rTNSS ( LS mean change 0.65 and 0.52 , respectively from baseline ; p ≤ 0.01 versus placebo for both ) , and iTNSS ( LS mean change 0.51 and 0.42 , respectively from baseline ; p < 0.05 versus placebo for both ) from baseline . Conclusion In this study , once-daily treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses over 26 weeks was well tolerated with comparable incidence of TEAEs between the treatment groups BACKGROUND Seasonal allergic rhinitis ( SAR ) is an allergen-induced inflammatory reaction that occurs during periods of high pollen count . Current treatments for SAR include allergen avoidance , systemic antihistamines , and steroidal and nonsteroidal intranasal sprays . Olopatadine is a selective antihistamine and an inhibitor of proinflammatory mediators from human mast cells . An intranasal formulation of olopatadine has been developed for the treatment of SAR . OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6 % ( OLO ) relative to azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1 % ( AZE ) and an inactive vehicle in the treatment of SAR . METHODS This Phase III , multicenter , r and omized , double-blind , active- and placebo-controlled , parallel-group study was conducted at 21 centers across the United States . Eligible patients were aged > or = 12 years and had a history of SAR and verified allergy to a prevalent local allergen . After a run-in period during which inactive vehicle was administered , patients were r and omly assigned to OLO , AZE ( active control ) , or inactive vehicle ( identical to OLO ; placebo control ) , 2 sprays in each nostril BID for 16 days . The timing of enrollment was correlated with the start of the allergy season at each site . Symptoms were recorded twice daily in an electronic diary . Efficacy assessment s included changes in mean daily reflective total nasal symptom scores ( TNSS ) . Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events ( AEs ) and nasal , physical , and cardiovascular parameters . RESULTS A total of 544 patients were r and omized . The mean age was 36 years ( range , 12 - 77 years ) ; men and boys represented 32.2 % of the population ; and the patients were predominantly white ( 75.4 % ) . The mean reductions from baseline in reflective TNSS were 26.8 % , 29.9 % , and 18.4 % with OLO , AZE , and inactive vehicle , respectively ( P = 0.003 OLO vs inactive vehicle ; 95 % CI , -2.5 % to 8.7 % OLO vs AZE [ non-inferiority ] ) . The most commonly reported treatment-related AE in the OLO and AZE groups was bitter taste ( 12.2 % [ 22/180 ] and 19.7 % [ 37/188 ] , respectively ) . The prevalence and intensity of bitter taste were significantly lower with OLO than with AZE ( P = 0.05 and P = 0.005 , respectively ) . In the group that received inactive vehicle , the prevalence of bitter taste was 1.7 % ( 3/176 ) . The prevalences of other treatment-related AEs , including epistaxis and nasal discomfort , were < or = 3.7 % in each group and did not differ significantly between groups . CONCLUSIONS In this small study in patients aged > or = 12 years with SAR , the percentage reduction from baseline in TNSS was significantly greater with OLO ( 2 sprays in each nostril BID ) compared with vehicle and not significantly different from that with AZE . OLO and AZE were similarly well tolerated , with the exception of prevalence and intensity of bitter taste , which were significantly lower with OLO Allergic rhinitis ( AR ) is highly prevalent in children .  Olopatadine , 0.6 % nasal spray ( olopatadine ) is approved for the relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis ( SAR ) symptoms in children 6 years of age and older . The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive report of all clinical studies conducted with olopatadine in children with SAR . A pooled analysis was conducted of 2 r and omized , double-blind , 2-week , IRB-approved studies that compared olopatadine with placebo ( 1 spray/nostril twice-daily ) in patients 6 - 11 years of age with SAR . Assessment s included the reflective total nasal symptom score ( rTNSS ) and total ocular symptom score ( rTOSS ) , the Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality -of-Life Question naire ( PRQLQ ) , and the Caregiver Treatment Satisfaction Question naire for Allergic Rhinitis ( CGTSQ-AR ) . Safety results were reported for these studies in combination with a pediatric pharmacokinetic study . Olopatadine was superior to placebo for mean decrease in rTNSS ( p = 0.0012 ) and rTOSS ( p = 0.0094 ) , mean decrease in overall PRQLQ score ( p = 0.0003 ) , and mean summary CGTSQ AR score ( p = 0.0013 ) ; ( n = 944 ) . The most frequently reported treatment-related events in the olopatadine group were epistaxis and dysgeusia ( bad taste ) ( n = 1,046 ) . For SAR treatment in patients 6 - 11 years of age , olopatadine was superior to placebo in reducing the symptoms of SAR , improving quality of life , and satisfying caregivers .  Olopatadine is a safe and effective treatment for SAR patients as young as 6 years of age and it has been demonstrated to reduce disease impact on the lives of these children and their families Olopatadine ( OLO ) nasal spray 0.6 % is indicated for treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis ( SAR ) in subjects > or = 12 years of age . This study was design ed to present the results of two studies that evaluated the efficacy , safety , and pharmacokinetics ( PK ) of OLO in children with allergic rhinitis ( AR ) . These were multicenter , double-blind , r and omized , parallel-group studies in subjects 6 to < 12 years of age ( study 1 ) and 2 to < 6 years of age ( study 2 ) with SAR ( study 1 ) or AR ( study 2 ) . In study 1 , nasal and ocular symptoms were scored for efficacy , and study 2 included PK analyses . In both studies , subjects were evaluated based on physical/nasal examinations and adverse events ( AEs ) . Overall , 1188 subjects ( study 1 ) and 132 subjects ( study 2 ) were r and omized , respectively . OLO ( 1 or 2 sprays/nostril , b.i.d . ) was superior to vehicle in the percent decrease in reflective total nasal symptom scores ( p < or = 0.0120 ) . OLO 1 spray/nostril b.i.d . was also superior to vehicle in the percent decreases in reflective total ocular symptom scores ( p < or = 0.0084 ) , change from baseline in Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality -of-Life Question naire scores ( p < or = 0.0377 ) , Caregiver Treatment Satisfaction Question naire scores ( p < or = 0.0450 ) , and proportions of subjects reporting improvements in Subject Global Assessment s ( p = 0.0035 ) . The most frequently reported treatment-related events in the OLO group were bad/bitter taste and epistaxis . In subjects 6 to < 12 years of age , OLO was superior to vehicle in the treatment of SAR . In subjects 2 to < 12 years of age , OLO had an overall low rate of AEs and low systemic exposure Intranasal corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of the symptoms of persistent allergic rhinitis ( AR ) . Since the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon nasal aerosols , intranasal corticosteroids have been available only as aqueous nasal sprays . This study was design ed to assess the efficacy , safety , and quality -of-life benefits of beclomethasone dipropionate ( BDP ) hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in subjects with perennial AR ( PAR ) . After a 7- to 21-day placebo run-in period , eligible subjects aged ≥12 years with PAR were r and omized to 6 weeks of once-daily treatment with BDP nasal aerosol at 320 μg or placebo . Reflective and instantaneous total nasal symptom scores ( rTNSS and iTNSS , respectively ) , Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Question naire ( RQLQ ) score , and physician-assessed total nasal symptom score were evaluated . The primary end point was change from baseline in average morning ( A.M. ) and evening ( P.M. ) subject-reported rTNSS over the 6-week treatment period . Safety and tolerability were also assessed . Treatment with BDP nasal aerosol showed significantly greater improvement in average A.M. and P.M. rTNSS compared with placebo ( 
    Output:
    
All active treatments were well tolerated and effective as measured by the reduction in nasal symptoms .
MP-AzeFlu provided significantly greater symptom relief than either azelastine or fluticasone propionate alone and with an onset starting at 30 minutes after the dose .
Analysis of clinical data showed this to be the first new intranasal medication that provides greater clinical benefit than an INCS in treating AR