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
BACKGROUND: This exploratory study investigated effects of a new asymmetric butterfly-shaped prototype nasal dilator strip and the currently marketed clear Breathe Right Nasal Strip (BRNS) on subjective measures of nasal congestion and sleep quality. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, subjects with chronic nasal congestion and sleep difficulties were assigned a BRNS clear strip, an asymmetric butterfly prototype, or an asymmetric butterfly placebo strip without springs, to use nightly for 2 weeks. The main outcomes included change from baseline to days 7 and 14 on the Pittsburgh Insomnia Rating Scale (PIRS), Nocturnal Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (NRQLQ), and Congestion Quantifier Seven-Item Test (CQ7). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 59 subjects. The butterfly and BRNS strips showed significant (P < 0.05) improvement versus placebo on PIRS satisfaction with sleep at day 7 [least square (LS) mean changes: - 0.7, - 0.6, and - 0.2, respectively], and the butterfly strip also showed significant improvement from baseline on this outcome versus placebo at day 14 (- 1.0 vs - 0.5). On the NRQLQ, both the butterfly prototype and BRNS clear were more effective than placebo in improving symptoms on waking at day 7 (LS mean changes: - 7.9, - 7.2, and - 4.1, respectively); the BRNS clear was significantly more effective than placebo in improving sleep problems at day 7 (- 7.4 vs - 4.2). There were no between-treatment differences on the CQ7. All strips were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The asymmetric butterfly prototype and BRNS clear strip significantly improved some subjective measures of nasal congestion and sleep compared with placebo in subjects with nasal congestion and sleep difficulties.Trial registration This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01122849).
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Environmental cues may precipitate nicotine cravings in smokers. We present 2 studies exploring the efficacy of nicotine mini lozenges to reduce nicotine craving in smokers following behavioral provocation. METHODS: Healthy smokers aged ≥18 years enrolled. In Study 1, participants were stratified by number of cigarettes smoked daily; Study 2 enrolled only heavy smokers. After an abstinence period, participants engaged in behavioral provocation to induce nicotine craving before receiving a nicotine mini lozenge (Study 1: 1.5 mg or 4 mg; Study 2: 4 mg) or matching placebo. Craving was assessed using a 100-mm visual analogue scale, and safety was monitored. RESULTS: In Study 1, neither nicotine mini lozenge dose significantly reduced craving in smokers versus placebo. In Study 2, 4-mg nicotine mini lozenges significantly reduced craving scores 5 minutes post-treatment (least-square mean [LSM] change from baseline: -41.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -45.8, -37.7) versus placebo (-25.9; 95% CI: -30.0, -21.8; p < .001). Adverse events were infrequent, mild in intensity, and more common with the 4-mg nicotine mini lozenges. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviorally provoked nicotine craving can be significantly and safely reduced in heavy/high-dependency smokers with 4-mg nicotine mini lozenges.
