Observational study investigating Ectoin® Rhinitis Nasal Spray as natural treatment option of acute rhinosinusitis compared to treatment with Xylometazoline.

INTRODUCTION: Symptomatic relief of acute rhinosinusitis is commonly achieved with nasal decongestants. The current observational study investigated the efficacy and safety of treatment of acute rhinosinusitis with Ectoin® Rhinitis Spray compared to or in combination with Xylometazoline-containing decongesting nasal spray. METHODS: Patients with acute rhinosinusitis applied either Ectoin® Rhinitis Spray, Xylometazoline nasal spray or a combination of both products. Rhinosinusitis symptoms were assessed, and nasal oedema and endonasal redness were determined by rhinoscopy. Patient diaries based on the validated SNOT (Sino Nasal Outcome Test) questionnaire evaluated rhinosinusitis parameters over time and influences of the disease on quality of life. Following treatment, investigators and patients judged the efficacy and tolerability. RESULTS: Ectoin® Rhinitis Spray diminished common rhinosinusitis symptoms such as nasal obstruction, nasal secretion, facial pain/headache, and smell/taste impairment. Upon treatment over 7 days, rhinosinusitis sum scores decreased statistically significantly (p < 0.001) by - 64.25%, which was comparable to that achieved with Xylometazoline-containing decongesting nasal spray (- 67.60%). No side effects were observed during treatment with Ectoin® Rhinitis Spray, whereas treatment with Xylometazoline-containing nasal spray resulted in nasal mucosa dryness. Concomitant treatment with both products diminished the development of nasal dryness and required fewer applications of Xylometazoline-containing nasal spray. CONCLUSION: Ectoin® Rhinitis Spray is an effective, natural treatment option for acute rhinosinusitis, which may be used as monotherapy or as add-on treatment with a Xylometazoline-containing nasal spray. The concomitant use of Ectoin® Rhinitis Spray might reduce the needed dose of decongestant nasal spray and counteract bothersome side effects such as dry nasal mucosa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The current study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database under the identifier: NCT03693976 (date of registration: Oct 3, 2018).

Ectoine lozenges in the treatment of acute viral pharyngitis: a prospective, active-controlled clinical study.

PURPOSE: Acute pharyngitis is an uncomfortable disorder mostly caused by viruses and for which antibiotics are unwarranted. This study compared lozenges containing ectoine, a natural extremolyte, with hyaluronic acid lozenges and hypertonic saline gargle for symptomatic treatment of acute viral pharyngitis. METHODS: This prospective, controlled clinical study, recruited 90 patients with moderate-to-severe pharyngitis symptoms who chose to use either ectoine (n = 35), hyaluronic acid (n = 35), or saline gargle (n = 20). Patients applied their 7-day treatment from the inclusion visit (V1) until the end-of-study visit (V2). Patients' pharyngitis symptoms, general health, general treatment effectiveness and tolerability, and patient compliance were assessed by investigators and patients. RESULTS: The sum score for three primary symptoms (pain on swallowing, urge to cough, and hoarseness) decreased by 79.5% (ectoine), 72.2% (hyaluronic acid), and 44.8% (saline gargle). Both lozenges were significantly superior to saline gargle (P < 0.05). Regarding general health improvement, ectoine was significantly superior to saline gargle (72.5% vs. 45.2%, P < 0.05), but hyaluronic acid (63.3%) was not. At V2, 65.7% of patients receiving ectoine reported "very good" general health vs. 48.6% of those receiving hyaluronic acid and 20.0% using saline gargle. Ectoine was significantly superior (P < 0.05) to both hyaluronic acid and saline gargle in terms of tolerability and patient compliance. No patients taking ectoine reported unpleasant sensations while applying their treatment, whereas almost half of patients using hyaluronic acid lozenges and saline gargle did. CONCLUSION: Treatment with ectoine lozenges significantly relieves moderate-to-severe symptoms of acute viral pharyngitis and is more effective and tolerable than treatments with hyaluronic acid lozenges and hypertonic saline gargle.

Noninterventional open-label trial investigating the efficacy and safety of ectoine containing nasal spray in comparison with beclomethasone nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Objectives. The current study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a classical anti-inflammatory beclomethasone nasal spray in comparison to a physic-chemical stabilizing ectoine containing nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Design and Methods. This was a noninterventional, open-label, observational trial investigating the effects of beclomethasone or ectoine nasal spray on nasal symptoms and quality of life. Over a period of 14 days, patients were asked to daily document their symptoms. Efficacy and tolerability were assessed by both physicians and patients. Results. Both treatments resulted in a significant decrease of TNSS values. An equivalence test could not confirm the noninferiority of ectoine treatment in comparison with beclomethasone treatment. Although clear symptom reduction was achieved with the ectoine products, the efficacy judgment showed possible advantages for the beclomethasone group. Importantly, tolerability results were comparably good in both groups, and a very low number of adverse events supported this observation. Both treatments resulted in a clear improvement in the quality of life as assessed by a questionnaire answered at the beginning and at the end of the trial. Conclusion. Taken together, it was shown that allergic rhinitis can be safely and successfully treated with beclomethasone and also efficacy and safety were shown for ectoine nasal spray.

Treatment of allergic rhinitis with ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops in comparison with azelastine containing nasal spray and eye drops or with cromoglycic Acid containing nasal spray.

Objectives. Allergic rhinitis is a common disease with increasing prevalence and high impact on economic burden and comorbidities. As treatment with pharmacological drugs is not always satisfactory due to side effects and incomplete efficacy, alternative treatment strategies are needed. Ectoine is an osmolyte with membrane stabilizing and inflammation reducing capacities. Nasal spray and eye drops containing ectoine are promising new treatment regimens for allergic rhinitis sufferers. Design and Methods. The current two noninterventional trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops for treating allergic rhinitis in comparison with either azelastine or cromoglycic acid containing products. Nasal and ocular symptom developments as well as judgment of tolerability and efficacy were assessed both by investigators and patients over a time period of one to two weeks. Results. Both trials confirmed that ectoine containing products reduced nasal and ocular symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients. Results clearly demonstrated good safety profiles of the ectoine products comparable to those of azelastine and even better to those of cromoglycate products. Conclusion. Ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops are interesting new treatment strategies for sufferers of allergic rhinitis, combining both good efficacy and absence of side effects.

Treatment of rhinitis sicca anterior with ectoine containing nasal spray.

Objectives. The safety and efficacy of ectoine nasal spray and ectoine nasal spray with dexpanthenol in the treatment of rhinitis sicca were evaluated in two studies. Design and Methods. Two noninterventional observational studies were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a nasal spray containing ectoine (study 1) and ectoine/dexpanthenol (study 2) over a period of two weeks including comparable numbers of patients suffering from rhinitis sicca anterior. Patients and physicians were asked to rate the efficacy in reducing symptoms and the tolerability over the treatment phase. Results. The treatment in both studies resulted in a clinical and statistical significant reduction of the main diagnosis parameters, nasal airway obstruction, and crust formation. There was also a significant reduction in the secondary diagnosis parameters in both studies. Importantly, the tolerability was very good. During the whole observational study, neither patients nor doctors stopped the medication due to unwanted effects. Conclusion. Rhinitis sicca could be successfully treated with a nasal spray containing ectoine and a nasal spray combining ectoine with dexpanthenol. The combination of both substances led to slight advantages.

The value of herbal medicines in the treatment of acute non-purulent rhinosinusitis. Results of a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

In a prospective, randomised, double-blinded controlled study, we compared the efficacy and safety of two different treatment options with the herbal medicines cineole and a combination of five different components for acute viral rhinosinusitis. One hundred and fifty patients with acute and viral rhinosinusitis (75 patients in each treatment group) were enrolled. The diagnosis rhinosinusitis was made according to a defined symptoms-sum-score which was based on rhinoscopic and clinical signs which are characteristic for rhinosinusitis. The primary endpoint was the amelioration of the symptoms-sum-score, which includes all relevant characteristics for rhinosinusitis as headache on bending, frontal headache, sensitivity of pressure points of trigeminal nerve, impairment of general condition, nasal obstruction, rhino-secretion, secretion quantity, secretion viscosity and fever in a treatment period of 7 days. The mean reduction of the symptoms-sum-score after 4 days was 6.7 (+/-3.4) and after 7 days 11.0 (+/-3.3) in the cineole group and 3.6 (+/-2.8) after 4 days and 8.0 (+/-3.0) after 7 days in the control group. The differences between both groups were clinically relevant and statistically significant after 4 and 7 days (P < 0.0001). This result is validated by the amelioration of the secondary endpoints headache on bending, frontal headache, sensitivity of pressure points of trigeminal nerve, impairment of general condition, nasal obstruction and rhino-secretion. These findings correlate with the statistically significant difference of the estimation of B-scan ultrasonography. It is safe to use both medications for 7 days in patients with acute viral rhinosinusitis. Treatment with cineole is clinically relevant and statistically significant, more effective in comparison to the alternative herbal preparation with five different components.

Therapy for acute nonpurulent rhinosinusitis with cineole: results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Nonpurulent rhinosinusitis can be treated successfully with cineole. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: We compared efficacy and safety of cineole capsules with placebo capsules in 152 patients with acute rhinosinusitis (76 patients in each treatment group). The dosage of the active ingredient was two 100-mg capsules of cineole three times daily. The primary end point was the reduction of a defined symptoms-sum-score based on symptoms and signs comparing baseline therapy difference from the beginning to the end of the 7-day treatment. RESULTS: All randomly selected patients were assigned to the intention-to-treat-population. At the beginning, the mean symptoms-sum-score was 15.6 in both treatment groups. The mean values for the symptoms-sum-scores in the cineole group were 6.9 +/- 2.9 after 4 days and 3.0 +/- 2.8 after 7 days, and in the placebo group, 12.2 +/- 2.5 after 4 days and 9.2 +/- 3.0 after 7 days. The differences between both groups were clinically relevant and statistically significant after 4 and 7 days. The result for the primary end point was validated by the amelioration of the following secondary end points: headache on bending, frontal headache, sensitivity of pressure points of trigeminal nerve, impairment of general condition, nasal obstruction, and rhinological secretion. Mild side effects, possibly associated with medication, were observed in two patients as heartburn and exanthema after treatment with cineole. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute nonpurulent rhinosinusitis, timely treatment with cineole is effective and safe before antibiotics are indicated.