Randomized Trials of Nasal Patency and Dermal Tolerability With External Nasal Dilators in Healthy Volunteers.

IF 2.3 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Allergy & Rhinology Pub Date : 2018-10-05 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2152656718796740
John Ward, Renee Ciesla, William Becker, Gilbert Marava Shanga
{"title":"Randomized Trials of Nasal Patency and Dermal Tolerability With External Nasal Dilators in Healthy Volunteers.","authors":"John Ward,&nbsp;Renee Ciesla,&nbsp;William Becker,&nbsp;Gilbert Marava Shanga","doi":"10.1177/2152656718796740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>External nasal dilator strips are used as nonpharmacological therapy to reduce snoring and daytime sleepiness. In a product improvement initiative, a marketed strip (BRNS) and 2 prototype nasal strips were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the nasal patency and multiple-use dermal tolerability of the BRNS and prototype nasal strips using both objective and subject-reported outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two studies were conducted separately in healthy volunteers ≥18 years of age. A single-day nasal patency randomized crossover study assessed minimal cross-sectional area (MCA; second restriction) and nasal volume (using acoustic rhinometry); nasal inspiratory flow and resistance (using posterior rhinomanometry); and subject-reported evaluations of the BRNS compared with the butterfly strip and teardrop strip prototypes. A single-center, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, evaluator-blinded study assessed dermal tolerability of the BRNS and the butterfly strip over 7 consecutive nights of use, using the Dermal Response Scale (DRS) and subject-reported comfort and ease of removal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the Patency study (N = 50), all 3 strips demonstrated significant improvement from baseline in MCA, nasal volume, and nasal flow parameters (resistance and peak flow). The prototype strips demonstrated significantly more improvement in nasal volume than the BRNS, and the butterfly strip showed significantly more improvement in MCA than the BRNS; all strips were similar with respect to nasal flow and subject-reported nasal breathing outcomes. In the Dermal Tolerability study (N = 82), all subjects scored 0 (no evidence of irritation) on the DRS at all 7 morning assessments; the BRNS was numerically, but not significantly, superior to the butterfly strip on subject-reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Patency study demonstrated significant improvement from baseline in nasal dimensions and flow for all 3 evaluated strips; between-strip differences were confined to nasal dimensions. Both the BRNS and butterfly strip were generally well tolerated, with no evidence of dermal response over 7 consecutive nights of use.<b>ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers:</b> NCT01105949 and NCT01495494.</p>","PeriodicalId":45192,"journal":{"name":"Allergy & Rhinology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2152656718796740","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy & Rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2152656718796740","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: External nasal dilator strips are used as nonpharmacological therapy to reduce snoring and daytime sleepiness. In a product improvement initiative, a marketed strip (BRNS) and 2 prototype nasal strips were evaluated.

Objective: To compare the nasal patency and multiple-use dermal tolerability of the BRNS and prototype nasal strips using both objective and subject-reported outcome measures.

Methods: Two studies were conducted separately in healthy volunteers ≥18 years of age. A single-day nasal patency randomized crossover study assessed minimal cross-sectional area (MCA; second restriction) and nasal volume (using acoustic rhinometry); nasal inspiratory flow and resistance (using posterior rhinomanometry); and subject-reported evaluations of the BRNS compared with the butterfly strip and teardrop strip prototypes. A single-center, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, evaluator-blinded study assessed dermal tolerability of the BRNS and the butterfly strip over 7 consecutive nights of use, using the Dermal Response Scale (DRS) and subject-reported comfort and ease of removal.

Results: In the Patency study (N = 50), all 3 strips demonstrated significant improvement from baseline in MCA, nasal volume, and nasal flow parameters (resistance and peak flow). The prototype strips demonstrated significantly more improvement in nasal volume than the BRNS, and the butterfly strip showed significantly more improvement in MCA than the BRNS; all strips were similar with respect to nasal flow and subject-reported nasal breathing outcomes. In the Dermal Tolerability study (N = 82), all subjects scored 0 (no evidence of irritation) on the DRS at all 7 morning assessments; the BRNS was numerically, but not significantly, superior to the butterfly strip on subject-reported outcomes.

Conclusion: The Patency study demonstrated significant improvement from baseline in nasal dimensions and flow for all 3 evaluated strips; between-strip differences were confined to nasal dimensions. Both the BRNS and butterfly strip were generally well tolerated, with no evidence of dermal response over 7 consecutive nights of use.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01105949 and NCT01495494.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

健康志愿者使用外扩鼻器鼻通畅性和皮肤耐受性的随机试验。
背景:鼻外扩张条被用作减少打鼾和白天嗜睡的非药物治疗。在产品改进计划中,对一种已上市的鼻贴(BRNS)和2种原型鼻贴进行了评估。目的:通过客观和受试者报告的结果测量,比较BRNS和原型鼻贴的鼻腔通畅性和多次使用的皮肤耐受性。方法:两项研究分别在年龄≥18岁的健康志愿者中进行。一项为期一天的鼻通畅随机交叉研究评估了最小横截面积(MCA;第二限制)和鼻容积(使用声学鼻测量法);鼻吸气流量和阻力(使用后鼻测压法);以及受试者报告的BRNS与蝴蝶条和泪滴条原型的比较。一项单中心、随机、对照、平行组、评估者盲法研究,使用皮肤反应量表(DRS)和受试者报告的舒适度和去除难易程度,评估了BRNS和蝴蝶条连续使用7晚后的皮肤耐受性。结果:在Patency研究中(N = 50),所有3条试纸在MCA、鼻容积和鼻流量参数(阻力和峰值流量)方面均较基线有显著改善。原型条对鼻容积的改善明显大于BRNS,蝴蝶条对MCA的改善明显大于BRNS;所有测试条在鼻流量和受试者报告的鼻腔呼吸结果方面相似。在皮肤耐受性研究(N = 82)中,所有受试者在所有7次上午评估中DRS得分为0(无刺激证据);在受试者报告的结果上,BRNS在数值上优于蝴蝶条,但并不显著。结论:通畅性研究表明,与基线相比,所有3条评估条的鼻尺寸和流量均有显著改善;条带间差异仅限于鼻尺寸。BRNS和蝴蝶条的耐受性一般都很好,在连续7个晚上的使用中没有皮肤反应的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Allergy & Rhinology
Allergy & Rhinology OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
11
审稿时长
15 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信