CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05146206Updated Apr 12, 2024Results posted

Patient Satisfaction and Sensory Attributes Allergic Rhinitis Nasal Spray

An observational study in Allergic Rhinitis, sponsored by Community and Patient Preference Research Pty Ltd. Completed at 1 site in Australia. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-04-12.

Sponsored by Community and Patient Preference Research Pty Ltd · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Case-control
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
426
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The study seeks to understand patients' satisfaction and importance of treatment attributes for Allergic Rhinitis nasal sprays from two brands (RYALTRIS® vs. DYMISTA®).

Read the detailed description

The study seeks to understand patients' satisfaction and importance of treatment attributes for Allergic Rhinitis nasal sprays from two brands (RYALTRIS® vs. DYMISTA®).

To directly compare patient satisfaction with 2 different Allergic Rhinitis nasal sprays, an observational, cross-sectional study design with 2 independent samples was chosen. Participants will complete an online survey involving a Best-Worst scaling (BWS) task to determine satisfaction and importance index for sensory attributes.

The suggested treatment attributes are informed by a range of previous studies, including those conducted by Meltzer et al 2005 and Price et al 2020, and methodology from CaPPRe's own work in developing indices for importance and satisfaction of treatment attributes using BWS.

02

Conditions studied

  • Allergic Rhinitis

Keywords

  • Patient preference
  • Best-Worst Scaling
  • Treatment attributes
03

In context

Rhinitis

1,105 studies on the registry are indexed under Rhinitis; 65 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 426 is above the median of 141 across 172 observational studies indexed under Rhinitis.

Browse Rhinitis studies →

Lead sponsor

Community and Patient Preference Research Pty Ltd is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

The primary population will be patients with moderate to severe SAR or PAR with or without conjunctivitis in Australia who have been initiated on RYALTRIS® or DYMISTA® in that last 12 months.

The expected sample size is between 200 to 400 patients. 100-200 patients initiated on RYALTRIS® and 100-200 patients initiated on DYMISTA® nasal spray in the last 12 months.

Inclusion criteria

Allergic Rhinitis patients (moderate-to-severe Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis or Perennial Allergic Rhinitis) with or without conjunctivitis who meet the following criteria will be offered the opportunity to participate in the study:

  • Patients above 18 years old
  • Fluent in English
  • Patients initiated on RYALTRIS® or DYMISTA® nasal spray in the last 12 months and currently using treatment
  • Willing and able to provide consent to participate

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Have reported a loss of taste and/or smell related to COVID-19 (or other medical condition)
  • Are employed by a pharmaceutical company (to avoid conflict of interest)
  • Are employed by a vaccine company (to avoid conflict of interest)
  • Do not have access to the internet (to ensure validity of the data)
  • Are unable to read and understand English (to ensure validity of the data)
05

Study design

Observational model
Case-control
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
426 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Patients on RYALTRIS

    Patients who are currently using RYALTRIS nasal spray.

    Other: Observational

  • Patients on DYMISTA

    Patients who are currently using DYMISTA nasal spray.

    Other: Observational

Interventions

  • OtherObservational

    In this observational study, participants initated on RYALTRIS/DYMISTA nasal spray will complete a cross-sectional online survey that includes a Best-Worst Scaling task to capture their satisfaction and importance of various treatment attributes.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Overall Best-Worst Scaling Task Index Score (Treatment Satisfaction Index Score)

    The primary study endpoint is the overall index score from the Best Worst Scaling exercise, to reflect satisfaction and importance of treatment attributes of the RYALTRIS® and DYMISTA® nasal spray. Index scores from the Best Worst Scaling exercise range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher satisfaction of treatment attributes.

    Time frame: Cross-sectional - through study completion, an average of 3 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Rescaled Scores From Best-Worst Scaling Task

    Secondary study endpoints were the rescaled Best Worst Scaling domain scores from the Best Worst Scaling exercise (i.e., scores for each of the domains on satisfaction and importance). Rescaled Best-Worst Scaling domain scores range from 0 to 10 and represent the satisfaction and importance of each domain. Higher satisfaction rescaled scores indicate higher satisfaction on a treatment attribute. Higher importance rescaled scores indicate higher importance of the treatment attribute. Higher rescaled satisfaction and importance scores suggest a better outcome since participants are satisfied and more likely to adhere to their current treatment.

    Time frame: Cross-sectional - through study completion, an average of 3 months

07

Results

Posted Apr 12, 2024

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestonePatients on RYALTRISPatients on DYMISTA
Started98328
Completed98328
Not completed00

Outcome measures

PrimaryOverall Best-Worst Scaling Task Index Score (Treatment Satisfaction Index Score)

The primary study endpoint is the overall index score from the Best Worst Scaling exercise, to reflect satisfaction and importance of treatment attributes of the RYALTRIS® and DYMISTA® nasal spray. Index scores from the Best Worst Scaling exercise range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher satisfaction of treatment attributes.

Time frame:
Cross-sectional - through study completion, an average of 3 months
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Overall Best-Worst Scaling Task Index Score (Treatment Satisfaction Index Score)
units on a scaleParticipants Using Ryaltris (OLO/MOM)Participants Using Dymista (AZE/FLU)
Overall Best-Worst Scaling Task Index Score (Treatment Satisfaction Index Score)68.26 ± 1.3962.78 ± 0.70
Statistical analysis
  • Participants Using Ryaltris (OLO/MOM) vs Participants Using Dymista (AZE/FLU) · ANOVA · p = <.001
SecondaryRescaled Scores From Best-Worst Scaling Task

Secondary study endpoints were the rescaled Best Worst Scaling domain scores from the Best Worst Scaling exercise (i.e., scores for each of the domains on satisfaction and importance). Rescaled Best-Worst Scaling domain scores range from 0 to 10 and represent the satisfaction and importance of each domain. Higher satisfaction rescaled scores indicate higher satisfaction on a treatment attribute. Higher importance rescaled scores indicate higher importance of the treatment attribute. Higher rescaled satisfaction and importance scores suggest a better outcome since participants are satisfied and more likely to adhere to their current treatment.

Time frame:
Cross-sectional - through study completion, an average of 3 months
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Rescaled Scores From Best-Worst Scaling Task
units on a scaleParticipants Using Ryaltris (OLO/MOM)Participants Using Dymista (AZE/FLU)
Satisfaction - Immediate taste of medication6.12 ± 0.624.66 ± 0.26
Satisfaction - Aftertaste of medication5.84 ± 0.594.21 ± 0.23
Satisfaction - Smell of medication6.31 ± 0.645.55 ± 0.31
Satisfaction - Irritation to your nose6.05 ± 0.615.37 ± 0.30
Satisfaction - Urge to sneeze6.35 ± 0.645.52 ± 0.30
Satisfaction - Dripping out your nose/down your throat6.20 ± 0.634.89 ± 0.27
Satisfaction - Dryness of your nose or throat6.41 ± 0.655.64 ± 0.31
Satisfaction - Convenience (how easy it is to administer)7.31 ± 0.747.15 ± 0.39
Satisfaction - Fast acting (how quickly it works7.55 ± 0.767.16 ± 0.40
Satisfaction - Duration of effect (long lasting)7.30 ± 0.746.89 ± 0.38
Satisfaction - Perceived allergic rhinitis symptom control7.38 ± 0.757.96 ± 0.44
Importance - Immediate taste of medication5.84 ± 0.594.63 ± 0.26
Importance - Aftertaste of medication5.59 ± 0.564.80 ± 0.27
Importance - Smell of medication5.20 ± 0.533.41 ± 0.19
Importance - Irritation to your nose6.08 ± 0.615.51 ± 0.30
Importance - Urge to sneeze5.88 ± 0.594.69 ± 0.26
Importance - Dripping out your nose/down your throat6.29 ± 0.645.43 ± 0.30
Importance - Dryness of your nose or throat6.28 ± 0.635.49 ± 0.30
Importance - Convenience (how easy it is to administer)6.65 ± 0.676.17 ± 0.34
Importance - Fast acting (how quickly it works)7.35 ± 0.747.48 ± 0.41
Importance - Duration of effect (long lasting)7.34 ± 0.747.70 ± 0.43
Importance - Perceived allergic rhinitis symptom control8.00 ± 0.818.86 ± 0.49
Statistical analysis
  • Participants Using Ryaltris (OLO/MOM) vs Participants Using Dymista (AZE/FLU) · MANOVA · p = <0.001

Adverse events

Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Patients on RYALTRIS———
Patients on DYMISTA———

Baseline characteristics

As this was a non-interventional study, all participants were already initiated on their treatment.

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Patients on RYALTRISPatients on DYMISTATotal
<=18 years000
Between 18 and 65 years92292384
>=65 years63642
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex/Gender, Customized(Participants)Patients on RYALTRISPatients on DYMISTATotal
Gender — Female44249293
Gender — Male5477131
Gender — Non-binary/gender fluid011
Gender — Prefer not to answer011
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Patients on RYALTRISPatients on DYMISTATotal
Count of participants——0
Treatment Satisfaction Index
Treatment Satisfaction Index(units on a scale ranging from 0 to 100.)Patients on RYALTRISPatients on DYMISTATotal
Mean68.26 ± 13.7662.78 ± 12.6064.04 ± 13.07
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Community and Patient Preference Research Pty Ltd
    Sydney, New South Wales 2000, Australia
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2019. Allergic rhinitis ('hay fever'). Cat. no. PHE 257. Canberra: AIHW. Viewed 01 May 2020, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/chronic-respiratory-conditions/allergic-rhinitis-hay-fever/contents/allergic-rhinitis
  • Meltzer EO, Bardelas J, Goldsobel A, Kaiser H. A preference evaluation study comparing the sensory attributes of mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate nasal sprays by patients with allergic rhinitis. Treat Respir Med. 2005;4(4):289-96. doi: 10.2165/00151829-200504040-00007. PubMed 16086602 ↗
  • Meltzer EO, Garadi R, Laforce C, Chadwick SJ, Berger WE, Gross G, Edwards MR, Crenshaw K, Wall GM. Comparative study of sensory attributes of two antihistamine nasal sprays: olopatadine 0.6% and azelastine 0.1%. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2008 Nov-Dec;29(6):659-68. doi: 10.2500/aap.2008.29.3181. Epub 2008 Dec 6. PubMed 19144261 ↗
  • Meltzer EO, Hadley J, Blaiss M, Benninger M, Kimel M, Kleinman L, Dupclay L, Garcia J, Leahy M, Georges G. Development of questionnaires to measure patient preferences for intranasal corticosteroids in patients with allergic rhinitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Feb;132(2):197-207. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2004.10.010. PubMed 15692526 ↗
  • Price D, Klimek L, Galffy G, Emmeluth M, Koltun A, Kopietz F, Nguyen DT, van Weissenbruch R, Pohl W, Kuhl HC, Scadding G, Mullol J. Allergic rhinitis and asthma symptoms in a real-life study of MP-AzeFlu to treat multimorbid allergic rhinitis and asthma. Clin Mol Allergy. 2020 Aug 6;18:15. doi: 10.1186/s12948-020-00130-9. eCollection 2020. PubMed 32782442 ↗
  • Louviere, J., Flynn, T., Marley, A., 2015. References. In Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp. 316-331
  • Muhlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, Johnson FR. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview. Health Econ Rev. 2016 Dec;6(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x. Epub 2016 Jan 8. PubMed 26743636 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Oct 14, 2021

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 12, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05146206
Lead sponsor
Community and Patient Preference Research Pty Ltd
Collaborators
Seqirus, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals S.A.
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Dec 6, 2021
Start date
Nov 8, 2021
Primary completion
Feb 27, 2022
Completion
Feb 27, 2022
Results posted
Apr 12, 2024
Last update
Apr 12, 2024

Study contacts

Simon Fifer, PhD
principal investigator · Community and Patient Preference Research Pty Ltd

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion