Correction to: Objective and Subjective Effects of a Prototype Nasal Dilator Strip on Sleep in Subjects with Chronic Nocturnal Nasal Congestion.

The article "Objective and Subjective Effects of a Prototype Nasal Dilator Strip on Sleep in Subjects with Chronic Nocturnal Nasal Congestion", written by John R. Wheatley, Terence C. Amis, Sharon A. Lee, Renee Ciesla, Gilbert Shanga was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on May, 22, 2019 without Open Access. The article has now been made Open Access.

Correction to: Sleep Quality and Congestion with Breathe Right Nasal Strips: Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

The article "Sleep Quality and Congestion with Breathe Right Nasal Strips: Two Randomized Controlled Trials", written by Michael J. Noss, Renee Ciesla, and Gilbert Shanga, was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on June 17, 2019 without Open Access. The article has now been made Open Access.

Sleep Quality and Congestion with Breathe Right Nasal Strips: Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Two multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trials assessed the effect of Breathe Right Nasal Strips (BRNS) on sleep-related quality of life in otherwise healthy subjects with chronic nocturnal nasal congestion who reported trouble sleeping. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to BRNS or a placebo strip for approximately 8 h each night for 14 days. Efficacy was assessed in the clinic using the Nocturnal Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (NRQLQ). RESULTS: A total of 140 subjects were randomized in Study 1, and 130 in Study 2. There was no significant difference between BRNS and placebo on either the NRQLQ "Sleep Problems" domain or the "Feel Tired and Unrefreshed" item of the "Symptoms on Waking in the Morning" domain at day 7 or 14. There was, however, a significant change in the least squares mean difference from baseline to days 7 and 14 in both the BRNS and placebo arms for each of these endpoints. BRNS were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: BRNS did not significantly improve subjective measures of sleep quality and nasal congestion compared with placebo strips in this population of chronic nocturnal congestion sufferers with self-reported sleep impairment, possibly due to a strong placebo effect. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Study 1: NCT03549117; Study 2: NCT03549130.

Objective and Subjective Effects of a Prototype Nasal Dilator Strip on Sleep in Subjects with Chronic Nocturnal Nasal Congestion.

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory study characterized the performance of a nasal dilator strip with improved spring forces in lowering nasal resistance during sleep and reducing sleep-disordered breathing in subjects with difficulty sleeping due to chronic nocturnal nasal congestion. METHODS: Subjects applied the strip at bedtime for 28 days (active phase; n = 70). Objective assessments included snoring variables, breathing route during sleep, and polysomnography measures compared with baseline. Nasal breathing, congestion, and sleep were measured subjectively using rating scales and questionnaires. During a crossover nasal resistance phase (n = 55), nasal resistance was measured using posterior rhinomanometry with the strip applied on one of two nights. RESULTS: In the active phase, breathing and sleep were perceived to improve, with less daytime sleepiness (P < 0.04) and increased ease of breathing, sleep quality, staying asleep, and feeling refreshed in the morning (all P < 0.0001). However, while objective polysomnography metrics were generally similar with and without the strip, median wake after sleep onset time was numerically reduced by ~ 11 min, and the spontaneous arousal rate fell by ~ 37%. In the nasal resistance phase (n = 55), median resistance (at 0.2-0.25 l/s) while asleep was 39.1% lower with (n = 37) versus without (n = 36) the strip (1.34 vs. 2.20 cmH2O/l/s; P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study supports a role for the improved spring force nasal dilator strip in alleviating sleep-related symptoms in subjects with chronic nasal congestion, potentially via lowering nasal resistance and reducing nocturnal awakenings. A larger study is indicated to confirm these preliminary data. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03105297. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare. Plain language summary available for this article.

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

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.

Effects of nasal dilator strips on subjective measures of sleep in subjects with chronic nocturnal nasal congestion: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

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).