Barrier‐forming, drug‐free nasal spray reduces allergic symptoms induced by house dust mite allergen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: House Dust Mite (HDM) is the most common indoor allergen triggering allergic symptoms. First-line pharmacotherapy treatment is recommended in international guidelines, while the avoidance of allergens represents a still unmet guideline principle. AM-301 is a new non-pharmacological nasal spray that creates a protective gel-like barrier on the nasal mucosa, preventing the contact with the allergens. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, 3-period crossover study assessed the efficacy and safety of AM-301. The objective was to determine whether AM-301 reduces allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms in patients exposed to HDM allergens. Adults with confirmed Perennial Allergic Rhinitis (PAR; n = 37) were exposed to HDM allergen in a controlled Allergen Exposure Chamber before and during a treatment course of AM-301 (in six different sequences) within 3 weeks (A: One spray AM-301 per nostril/B: Two sprays AM-301 per nostril/C: no treatment). For the primary efficacy analysis, data from the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) were pooled from treatment A + B (D) and analyzed with Analysis of Covariance Model. As secondary endpoints, single time points, visits and symptoms were analyzed. RESULTS: The primary endpoint (overall change in TNSS from baseline over all three visits) showed significant results (p = 0.0085). A comparable alleviation of all four symptoms (itchy nose, nasal congestion, runny nose, sneezing) by the protective layer started to emerge after 40 min and lasted up to 180 min (end of challenge). AM-301 resulted to be safe and well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: AM-301 significantly reduced HDM-related allergic symptoms in a standardized allergen challenge. Protection was observed to last up to 180 min.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".