Intranasal pediatric parainfluenza virus-vectored SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is protective in monkeys.

Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are needed that elicit immunity directly in the airways as well as systemically. Building on pediatric parainfluenza virus vaccines in clinical development, we generated a live-attenuated parainfluenza-virus-vectored vaccine candidate expressing SARS-CoV-2 prefusion-stabilized spike (S) protein (B/HPIV3/S-6P) and evaluated its immunogenicity and protective efficacy in rhesus macaques. A single intranasal/intratracheal dose of B/HPIV3/S-6P induced strong S-specific airway mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) and IgG responses. High levels of S-specific antibodies were also induced in serum, which efficiently neutralized SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern of alpha, beta, and delta lineages, while their ability to neutralize Omicron sub-lineages was lower. Furthermore, B/HPIV3/S-6P induced robust systemic and pulmonary S-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses, including tissue-resident memory cells in the lungs. Following challenge, SARS-CoV-2 replication was undetectable in airways and lung tissues of immunized macaques. B/HPIV3/S-6P will be evaluated clinically as pediatric intranasal SARS-CoV-2/parainfluenza virus type 3 vaccine.

AM-301, a barrier-forming nasal spray, versus saline spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized clinical trial.

RATIONALE: Saline nasal sprays are frequently used in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) for the cleansing and clearing of aeroallergens from the nasal cavity. Also using a drug-free approach, AM-301 nasal spray is forming a thin film barrier on the nasal mucosa to prevent contact with allergens, trap them, and facilitate their discharge. A clinical trial compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AM-301 and saline spray in SAR. METHODS: A total of 100 patients were randomized 1:1 to self-administer AM-301 or saline 3 × daily for 2 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint: reduction in mean daily reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy endpoints: reduction in mean instantaneous TNSS and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), global impression of efficacy. Safety and tolerability: adverse events, relief medication use, symptom-free days, global impression of tolerability. RESULTS: AM-301-treated patients achieved a significantly lower rTNSS than the saline group (LS square means difference -1.1, 95% CI -1.959 to -0.241, p = .013) with improvement observed across all individual nasal symptoms. Likewise, all secondary endpoints showed statistical significance in favor of AM-301; for example, quality of life was significantly improved overall (p < .001) as well as for each individual RQLQ domain. Both treatments showed similarly good safety and tolerability. With AM-301, fewer patients used relief medication and more enjoyed symptom-free days compared to saline treatment. CONCLUSIONS: AM-301 was more effective than saline in improving SAR nasal symptoms and related quality of life while offering similar tolerability, demonstrating the benefits of a barrier approach.

A randomized, double-blind study to compare the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine nasal spray and injectable solution in patients after orthopaedic interventions and traumatological procedures.

AIMS: Our previous 3-period crossover study in healthy volunteers comparing the pharmacokinetics of nalbuphine nasal spray Apain with parenteral nalbuphine solution demonstrated high bioavailability of the nasal spray and close similarity of pharmacokinetic profiles after intranasal and intramuscular administration, especially within 30 min postdose. The aim of the present study was a noninferiority assessment of nalbuphine nasal spray vs. intramuscular injection for pain relief in postoperative patients. METHODS: Ninety orthopaedic and traumatology patients were enrolled in this double-blind, randomized study of the effectiveness and tolerance of a single 10.5 mg dose of nalbuphine nasal spray vs. 10 mg intramuscular injection. The summed pain intensity difference (SPID0-6) calculated using visual analogue scale scores was the primary study endpoint. RESULTS: Of 90 subjects enrolled, the per-protocol efficacy population comprised 79 patients; 6 patients in the reference group and 5 patients in the test group were excluded due to remedication. The mean values of study endpoints with 95% confidence interval were as follows in reference and test groups, respectively: SPID0-6 = 228.08 (205.73-250.43) vs. 248.73 9 (225.83-271.63), time to pain relief onset = 0.28 h (0.25-0.31) vs. 0.27 h (0.25-0.29), duration of analgesia = 5.55 h (5.17-5.93) vs. 5.51 h (5.10-5.92), area under the curve = 119.30 (91.17-147.43) vs. 99.81 (74.52-107.10). No statistically significant differences were revealed. CONCLUSION: Nalbuphine nasal spray Apain has been proven to be a safe, noninvasive alternative to intramuscular nalbuphine to relieve severe postoperative pain. Designed for self-administration and dose-adjusting, the noncontrolled opioid analgesic nalbuphine spray can be used for patient-controlled analgesia in out-of-hospital, field and home settings.

Onset-of-Efficacy of Azelastine HCl 0.15% Nasal Spray for allergic rhinitis in an environmental exposure chamber.

BACKGROUND: Azelastine nasal spray is effective in relieving symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this single center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study was to evaluate the time to onset of efficacy of azelastine HCl 0.15% vs placebo in participants with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: 110 participants aged 18 to 65 years were randomized to receive azelastine HCl 0.15% two sprays per nostril vs placebo nasal spray after being continuously exposed to ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure chamber (EEC). Symptoms were evaluated subjectively by the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) scale. The primary efficacy parameter was the time to onset of efficacy of azelastine as measured by the change from baseline in TNSS 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240-minute post-dose. RESULTS: The azelastine nasal spray group had statistically significant improvement in TNSS compared with placebo 30 minutes post-dose (p=0.0002), and the effect was sustainable throughout the EEC session for all subsequent time points (p<0.0001). Adverse events were mild, including bitter taste, nasal discomfort, epistaxis, sinusitis, and nausea. No major adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSION: Azelastine HCl 0.15% nasal spray relieves nasal symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis and has a fast onset of action within 30 minutes. The overall safety profile of azelastine has also been proven to be safe. These results, along with prior findings on efficacy and improved quality of life for people suffering from allergic rhinitis, establish the important clinical role of azelastine HCl 0.15%.

Effects of esketamine nasal spray on depressive symptom severity in adults with treatment-resistant depression and associations between the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus newly initiated oral antidepressant (OAD) versus OAD plus placebo nasal spray (PBO) on the association between Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores in adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: Data from TRANSFORM-1 and TRANSFORM-2 (two similarly designed, randomized, active-controlled TRD studies) and SUSTAIN-1 (relapse prevention study) were analyzed. Group differences for mean changes in PHQ-9 total score from baseline were compared using analysis of covariance. Associations between MADRS and PHQ-9 total scores from TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 were assessed using simple parametric, nonparametric, and multiple regression models. RESULTS: In TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 (ESK + OAD, n = 343; OAD + PBO, n = 222), baseline PHQ-9 mean scores were 20.4 for ESK + OAD and 20.6 for OAD + PBO (severe depression). At day 28, significant group differences were observed in least squares mean change (SE) in PHQ-9 scores from baseline (-12.8 [0.46] vs -10.3 [0.53], P < .001) and in clinically substantial change in PHQ-9 scores (≥6 points; 77.1% vs 64%, P < .001) in ESK + OAD and OAD + PBO groups, respectively. A nonlinear relationship between MADRS and PHQ-9 was observed; total scores demonstrated increased correlation over time. In SUSTAIN-1, 57.3% of patients receiving ESK + OAD (n = 89) versus 44.2% receiving OAD + PBO (n = 86) retained remission status (PHQ-9 score ≤4) at maintenance treatment end point (P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with TRD, ESK + OAD significantly improved severity of depressive symptoms, and more patients achieved clinically meaningful changes in depressive symptoms based on PHQ-9, versus OAD + PBO. PHQ-9 outcomes were consistent with those of clinician-rated MADRS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02417064, NCT02418585, NCT02493868.

Treatment of agitation in terminally ill patients with intranasal midazolam versus subcutaneous midazolam: study protocol for a randomised controlled open-label monocentric trial (MinTU Study).

BACKGROUND: Intranasal (i.n.) drug application is a widely known and low-invasive route of administration that may be able to achieve rapid symptom control in terminally ill patients. According to the German S3 guideline "Palliative care for patients with incurable cancer", benzodiazepines, such as midazolam, are recommended for the treatment of terminal agitation. To the best of our knowledge there is no evidence for i.n. midazolam in terminally ill patients. We aim to assess the use of i.n. midazolam as an alternative to subcutaneous administration of the drug. METHODS: In this monocentric, randomised, controlled, open-label investigator initiated trial, n = 60 patients treated at the palliative care unit of a University Hospital will be treated with 5 mg midazolam i.n. versus 5 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) midazolam in the control arm when terminal agitation occurs (randomly assigned 1:1). The estimated recruitment period is 18 months. Treatment efficacy is defined as an improvement on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (Palliative Version) (RASS-PAL) and a study specific numeric rating scale (NRS) before and after drug administration. Furthermore, plasma concentration determinations of midazolam will be conducted at t1 = 0 min, t2 = 5 min, and t3 = 20 min using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC-MS). The primary objective is to demonstrate non-inferiority of midazolam i.n. in comparison to midazolam s.c. for the treatment of agitation in terminally ill patients. DISCUSSION: Midazolam i.n. is expected to achieve at least equivalent reduction of terminal agitation compared to s.c. administration. In addition, plasma concentrations of midazolam i.n. are not expected to be lower than those of midazolam s.c. and the dynamics of the plasma concentration with an earlier increase could be beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Registry DRKS00026775, registered 07.07.2022, Eudra CT No.: 2021-004789-36.

Nasal Spray of Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody 35B5 Confers Potential Prophylaxis Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Variants of Concern: A Small-Scale Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs), especially the Delta and Omicron variants, have been reported to show significant resistance to approved neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and vaccines. We previously identified a mAb named 35B5 that harbors broad neutralization to SARS-CoV-2 VOCs. Herein, we explored the protection efficacy of a 35B5-based nasal spray against SARS-CoV-2 VOCs in a small-scale clinical trial. METHODS: We enrolled 30 healthy volunteers who were nasally administered the modified 35B5 formulation. At 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after nasal spray, the neutralization efficacy of nasal mucosal samples was assayed with pseudoviruses coated with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein of the wild-type strain or the Alpha, Beta, Delta, or Omicron variants. RESULTS: The nasal mucosal samples collected within 24 hours after nasal spray effectively neutralized SARS-CoV-2 VOCs (including Delta and Omicron). Meanwhile, the protection efficacy was 60% effective and 20% effective at 48 and 72 hours after nasal spray, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A single nasal spray of 35B5 formation conveys 24-hour effective protection against SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, including the Alpha, Beta, Delta, or Omicron variants. Thus, 35B5 nasal spray might be potential in strengthening SARS-CoV-2 prevention, especially in high-risk populations. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: 2022-005-02-KY.

Nasal spray of an IgM-like ACE2 fusion protein HH-120 prevents SARS-CoV-2 infection: Two investigator-initiated postexposure prophylaxis trials.

HH-120, an IgM-like angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) fusion protein, has been developed as a nasal spray against Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is currently undergoing human trials. HH-120 nasal spray was assessed for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) in two investigator-initiated (NS01 and NS02) trials with different risk levels of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. NS01 enrolled family caregiver participants who had continuous contacts with laboratory-confirmed index cases; NS02 enrolled participants who had general contacts (Part 1) or close contacts (Part 2) with index cases. The primary endpoints were safety and laboratory-confirmed and/or symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. In NS01 trial (14 participants), the SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were 25% in the HH-120 group and 83.3% in the external control group (relative risk reduction [RRR]: 70.0%). In NS02-Part 1 (193 participants), the infection rates were 4% (HH-120) versus 11.3% (placebo), symptomatic infection rates were 0.8% versus 3.5%, hence with a RRR of 64.6% and 77.1%, respectively. In Part 2 (76 participants), the infection rates were 17.1% (HH-120) versus 30.4% (placebo), symptomatic infection rates were 7.5% versus 27.3%, with a RRR of 43.8% and 72.5%, respectively. No HH-120-related serious adverse effects were observed. The HH-120 nasal spray used as PEP was safe and effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Comparison of the immunogenicity of nasal-spray rVSV vector, adenovirus vector, and inactivated COVID-19-based vaccines in rodent models.

Intranasal (i.n.) vaccines can induce mucosal and systemic immunity against respiratory pathogens. Previously, we demonstrated that the recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)-based COVID-19 vaccine rVSV-SARS-CoV-2, with poor immunogenicity via the intramuscular route (i.m.), is more suitable for i.n. administration in mice and nonhuman primates. Here, we found that the rVSV-SARS-CoV-2 Beta variant was more immunogenic than the wild-type strain and other variants of concern (VOCs) in golden Syrian hamsters. Furthermore, the immune responses elicited by rVSV-based vaccine candidates via the i.n. route were significantly higher than those of two licensed vaccines: the inactivated vaccine KCONVAC delivered via the i.m. route and the adenovirus-based Vaxzevria delivered i.n. or i.m. We next assessed the booster efficacy of rVSV following two i.m. doses of KCONVAC. Twenty-eight days after receiving two i.m. doses of KCONVAC, hamsters were boosted with a third dose of KCONVAC (i.m.), Vaxzevria (i.m. or i.n.), or rVSVs (i.n.). Consistent with other heterologous booster studies, Vaxzevria and rVSV elicited significantly higher humoral immunity than the homogenous KCONVAC. In summary, our results confirmed that two i.n. doses of rVSV-Beta elicited significantly higher humoral immune responses than commercial inactivated and adeno-based COVID vaccines in hamsters. As a heterologous booster dose, rVSV-Beta induced potent, persistent, and broad-spectrum humoral and mucosal neutralizing responses against all VOCs, highlighting its potential to be developed into a nasal-spray vaccine.

Nasal spray of an IgM-like ACE2 fusion protein HH-120 accelerates SARS-CoV-2 clearance: A single-center propensity score-matched cohort study.

HH-120, a recently developed IgM-like ACE2 fusion protein with broad-spectrum neutralizing activity against all ACE2-utilizing coronaviruses, has been developed as a nasal spray for use as an early treatment agent to reduce disease progression and airborne transmission. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the HH-120 nasal spray in SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects. Eligible symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected participants were enrolled in a single-arm trial to receive the HH-120 nasal spray for no longer than 6 days or until viral clearance at a single hospital between August 3 and October 7, 2022. An external control was built from real-world data of SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects contemporaneously hospitalized in the same hospital using a propensity score matching (PSM) method. After PSM, 65 participants in the HH-120 group and 103 subjects with comparable baseline characteristics in the external control group were identified. The viral clearance time was significantly shorter in participants receiving the HH-120 nasal spray than that in subjects of the control group (median 8 days vs. 10 days, p < 0.001); the difference was more prominent in those subgroup subjects with higher baseline viral load (median 7.5 days vs. 10.5 days, p < 0.001). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and treatment-related adverse events of HH-120 group were 35.1% (27/77) and 3.9% (3/77), respectively. All the adverse events observed were mild, being of CTCAE grade 1 or 2, and transient. The HH-120 nasal spray showed a favorable safety profile and promising antiviral efficacy in SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects. The results from this study warrant further assessment of the efficacy and safety of the HH-120 nasal spray in large-scale randomized controlled clinical trials.

Efficacy and Safety of a Drug-Free, Barrier-Forming Nasal Spray for Allergic Rhinitis: Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Noninferiority Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms of allergic rhinitis can be reduced by nonpharmacological nasal sprays that create a barrier between allergens and the nasal mucosa. A new nasal spray (AM-301) containing the clay mineral bentonite was tested for its ability to reduce symptoms of grass pollen. METHODS: This open-label, crossover, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of AM-301 to that of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC; Nasaleze® Allergy Blocker), an established barrier method. Adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis were exposed to Dactylis glomerata pollen, in a controlled setting, the Fraunhofer allergen challenge chamber, first without protection and then protected by HPMC or AM-301 (7 days apart). Efficacy was assessed from total nasal symptom score (TNSS), nasal secretion weight, and subjective rating. The primary endpoint was the difference, between AM-301 and HPMC, in least square mean change in TNSS over a 4-h exposure to allergen. RESULTS: The study enrolled 36 persons, and 35 completed all study visits. The mean TNSS was 5.91 (SD = 1.45) during unprotected exposure, 5.20 (SD = 1.70) during protection with HPMC, and 4.82 (SD = 1.74) during protection with AM-301. The difference in least square means between the two treatments was -0.39 (95% CI: -0.89 to 0.10), establishing the noninferiority of AM-301. No difference in mean weight of nasal secretions was observed between the treatments. Efficacy was rated as good or very good for AM-301 by 31% and for HPMC by 14% of subjects. Sixteen subjects reported adverse events with a relationship to AM-301 or HPMC; most adverse events were mild, and none was serious. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: AM-301 demonstrated noninferiority toward HPMC in the primary endpoint and was perceived better in subjective secondary endpoints. Both barrier-forming products had a persisting protective effect over 4 h and were safe.

Comparative pharmacokinetics of nalbuphine nasal spray and solution for injection in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: Nalbuphine is a synthetic opioid with comparable analgesic activity to morphine but with a better safety profile. Nalbuphine is only available in injectable form due to low oral bioavailability. Nasal nalbuphine spray provides advantages in drug safety, avoids hepatic first-pass metabolism, is non-invasive and is convenient for patient-controlled analgesia by self-administration. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the newly developed nalbuphine nasal spray in comparison with a solution for injections. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy Caucasian volunteers were enrolled in this randomized, open-label, cross-over study. Subjects were administered one of the drugs: nasal spray 7.0 mg/dose, nalbuphine hydrochloride solution for injection 10 mg/dose intravenously (IV) or intramuscularly (IM). High-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was used to determine nalbuphine concentrations. RESULTS: A comparison of PK profiles for IV, IM and intranasal (IN) routes of nalbuphine administration revealed a close similarity of absorption phases for nasal spray and IM injection. Differences between the mean Tmax and dose-adjusted Cmax values for nasal spray and IM injection were statistically insignificant. The median values of the elimination rate constants and the terminal elimination half-life following IV, IM and IN nalbuphine administration were similar. The mean absolute bioavailability of the nasal spray equalled 65.04%. CONCLUSIONS: The similarity of PK parameters of IM-injected nalbuphine solution and the nasal spray allows us to assume the latter is a feasible alternative to intramuscular nalbuphine injections appropriate for self-administration and field environments for managing moderate and severe pain of various aetiologies.

Psychosocial outcomes of repeated treatment of seizure clusters with midazolam nasal spray: Results of a phase 3, open-label extension trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment satisfaction, level of anxiety, confidence about traveling with midazolam nasal spray (MDZ-NS), and health-related quality of life in patients with seizure clusters and their caregivers after repeated, intermittent use of MDZ-NS in the outpatient setting. METHODS: We analyzed the psychosocial outcome data from a phase 3, open-label extension trial (ARTEMIS-2; P261-402; NCT01529034) in patients 12 years of age and older with seizure clusters on a stable regimen of antiseizure medications. Caregivers administered MDZ-NS 5 mg when patients experienced a seizure cluster. A second dose could be given if seizures did not terminate within 10 min or recurred from 10 min to 6 h. Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), the Intranasal Therapy Impact Questionnaire (ITIQ), and the Short Form-12 Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2) were self-administered by patients and/or caregivers at prespecified visits. RESULTS: Of the one hundred and seventy-five patients enrolled in ARTEMIS-2, 161 (92.0%) received ≥ 1 dose of MDZ-NS and had a post-treatment seizure-related assessment and were included in the Efficacy Evaluable Set in this analysis, with a total of 1,998 treated seizure clusters over a median duration of 16.8 months. All TSQM scales showed improvement from the baseline of the double-blind ARTEMIS-1 trial (NCT01390220) to the last visit in ARTEMIS-2, indicating greater satisfaction with MDZ-NS across all domains, with a mean change from baseline of 8.8, 6.1, 4.3, and 6.2 for effectiveness (n = 135), side effects (n = 139), convenience (n = 139), and global satisfaction (n = 138), respectively. Change from baseline in TSQM scores generally increased with repeated MDZ-NS use. In both patients and caregivers, anxiety generally lessened with repeated MDZ-NS use, with a mean improvement in ITIQ scores in patients' anxiety since receiving MDZ-NS from 2.5 (n = 138) to 3.5 (n = 145) from visit 1 to the last visit (and from 2.6 [n = 156] to 3.6 [n = 160] for caregivers), respectively. From visit 1 (screening and enrollment in ARTEMIS-2) to visit 10 (after 16 seizure cluster episodes treated with MDZ-NS), the proportions of patients and caregivers who answered "strongly agree" or "agree" for confidence about traveling with an intranasal spray remained ≥ 79% and generally increased over repeated MDZ-NS use. Small positive mean changes in SF-12v2 scores from baseline to the last visit were observed in both patients and caregivers, respectively, for the domains of physical functioning (0.9, 1.1), role-physical (2.4, 0.3), bodily pain (1.7, 0.3), general health (0.6, 1.2), and role-emotional (2.1, 0.3), and in the physical health component (1.6, 1.0). CONCLUSION: Patients and caregivers perceived MDZ-NS favorably, with improvement from baseline on perceived effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and global satisfaction in the TSQM. This is supported by progressively lower anxiety and higher confidence levels about traveling with MDZ-NS over repeated intermittent use in the ITIQ. The positive mean changes observed in SF-12v2 scores from baseline to the last visit were small in magnitude. Limitations of this exploratory analysis include the open-label trial design and that these questionnaires have not been directly validated in epilepsy to identify clinically important changes; however, this does not mean these findings are not clinically meaningful. Overall, MDZ-NS is a socially acceptable drug device for outpatient treatment of seizure clusters that has the potential to improve quality of life and overall independence.

Esketamine versus placebo on time to remission in major depressive disorder with acute suicidality.

BACKGROUND: Esketamine (ESK) nasal spray, taken with oral antidepressant therapy, is approved for the treatment of depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. In pooled analyses of two pivotal phase 3 studies, ASPIRE I and II, remission rates were consistently higher among patients with MDD with active suicidality who were treated with ESK + standard of care (SOC) versus placebo (PBO) + SOC at all time points in the double-blind and most time points in the follow-up phases. The current analysis of the ASPIRE data sets assessed the effect of ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC on additional remission-related endpoints: time to achieving remission and consistent remission, proportion of patients in remission and consistent remission, and days in remission. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and II (N = 451). Remission and consistent remission were defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤ 12 at any given visit or two consecutive visits, respectively. Combined endpoints utilizing Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-revised version [CGI-SS-r] ≤ 1 (i.e., not suicidal/questionably suicidal) along with the remission and consistent remission definitions (i.e., MADRS total score ≤ 12) were also examined. RESULTS: The median times to remission and consistent remission of MDD were significantly shorter in ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC (15 versus 23 [p = 0.005] and 23 versus 50 days [p = 0.007], respectively) and a greater proportion of patients in ESK + SOC achieved remission and consistent remission by Day 25 (65.2% versus 55.5% and 54.2% versus 39.8%, respectively). Similar results were obtained using the combined endpoint for both remission definitions. The median percent of days in remission during the double-blind treatment phase was significantly greater in ESK + SOC (27.1% or 5 days) versus PBO + SOC (8.3% or 2 days; p = 0.006), and the significant difference was maintained during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Treatment with ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC resulted in significantly shorter time to remission, greater proportion of patients in remission, and greater percent of days in remission using increasingly rigorous definitions of remission. These findings underscore the clinical benefits of ESK for adults with MDD with suicidality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registry NCT03039192 (registered February 1, 2017) and NCT03097133 (registered March 31, 2017).

Clinical observation of dexmedetomidine nasal spray in the treatment of sleep disorders on the first night after undergoing maxillofacial surgery: a single-center double-blind randomized controlled study.

Purpose: Dexmedetomidine exerts a sedative effect by promoting the sleep pathway endogenously and producing a state similar to N2 sleep. This study aimed to study the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine nasal spray in the treatment of postoperative sleep disturbance. Methods: This study enrolled 120 participants [men and women; age, 18-40 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, I or II] who underwent maxillofacial surgery under general anesthesia through nasotracheal intubation. The participants were randomly divided into three groups: blank control group (BC group), 1.0 µg/kg dexmedetomidine group (1.0 Dex group), and 1.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine group (1.5 Dex group), with 40 patients allocated to each group. At 21:30 on the night after the operation, the intervention groups were administered their corresponding doses of dexmedetomidine nasal spray. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scale was used to evaluate the baseline sleep status of participants 1 month preoperatively and on the night after the operation. Polysomnography (PSG) was used to record the sleep status on the night after the operation. We recorded the rescue times of sedative and analgesic drugs on the first night after surgery, adverse reactions, total hospital stay duration, and total costs. Results: Compared with patients in the BC group, those in 1.0 Dex and 1.5 Dex groups had longer N2 sleep duration, were awake for a shorter time after dose administration, woke up less often, and had significantly improved sleep efficiency (p < 0.05). Compared with the BC group, the PSQI scores of 1.0 Dex and 1.5 Dex groups were significantly lower on the night after operation, and the proportion of PSQI > 5 was significantly lower (p < 0.05). Compared with patients in the BC group and the 1.0 Dex group, those in the 1.5 Dex group had significantly prolonged N3 sleep, reduced frequency of requiring sufentanil rescue, lower incidence of sore throat after surgery, and shorter average length of hospital stay (all, p < 0.05). Conclusion: The sleep quality of participants on the night after having undergone maxillofacial surgery was safely and effectively improved by 1.0-1.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine atomized nasal sprays. Notably, only the latter could prolong N3 sleep. Level of Evidence II: Evidence was obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.

The efficacy and safety of varenicline nasal spray for the management of dry eye signs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye disease (DED) is caused by a persistently unstable tear film leading to ocular discomfort and is treated mainly with tear supplementation. There is emerging evidence that nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonists (e.g., varenicline and simpinicline) nasal sprays are effective for DED. Our systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of varenicline nasal spray (VNS) for DED treatment. METHODS: The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of VNS versus placebo were included. The efficacy endpoint was the mean change in the anesthetized Schirmer test score (STS), a measure of basal tear production, from baseline. The safety endpoints were serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events (AEs). The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for continuous outcomes, while the risk ratio (RR) was used to demonstrate dichotomous variables. The certainty of the evidence was rated utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. RESULTS: Three RCTs (n = 1063) met the eligibility criteria. All RCTs had a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis found a statistically significant increase in the mean STS change from baseline on day 28. The pooled analysis found no significant difference between VNS and placebo in the frequency of SAEs and ocular AEs. However, VNS had a significant effect on developing nasal cavity-related AEs. CONCLUSION: VNS caused a highly significant improvement regarding the efficacy endpoint but caused an increased frequency of some nasal cavity-related AEs (i.e., cough and throat irritation). However, it caused neither SAEs nor ocular AEs. Included studies had a low risk of bias.

Nasal residence time and rheological properties of a new bentonite-based thixotropic gel emulsion nasal spray - AM-301.

OBJECTIVE: The present work provides characterization of rheological properties of a new bentonite-based thixotropic gel emulsion nasal spray (AM-301), its nasal residence time, distribution, safety and tolerability. SIGNIFICANCE: The nasal epithelium is a portal of entry for allergens and primary infection by airborne pathogens. Non-pharmacological interventions, which enhance physical and biological barriers, protect against allergens and pathogens without drug-related side effects. AM-301 has shown promising efficacy and safety in the nasal epithelium against viruses (in vitro) and pollen (clinical). METHODS: Technical part (i) spray characterization was performed with a validated droplet size distribution method; evaluation of the rheological properties of the formulation was performed by a validated amplitude sweep method and a validated oscillation, rotation, oscillation; Clinical part (ii) nasal and oropharyngeal endoscopy were used to provide a semi-quantitative evaluation of distribution and residence time of fluorescein-labelled AM-301 in the nose and oropharynx of healthy volunteers; (iii) tolerability and safety. RESULTS: (i) The non-Newtonian rheological properties of the formulation allow AM-301 to be sprayed and then to revert to a gel to prevent run-off from the nasal cavity; (ii) the formulation remains on the inferior turbinate, septum and oropharynx of volunteers for up to 210 min and on the middle turbinate for up to 60 min; two nasal sprays provide no substantial benefit over a single application with regards to coverage or retention; (iii) the spray is well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Single dose spray delivery of AM-301 provides extended coverage of the nasal mucosa up to the inferior turbinates.

Effects of Usnic Acid to Prevent Infections by Creating a Protective Barrier in an In Vitro Study.

Nasal sprays are medical devices useful for preventing infection and the subsequent spread of airborne pathogens. The effectiveness of these devices depends on the activity of chosen compounds which can create a physical barrier against viral uptake as well as incorporate different substances with antiviral activity. Among antiviral compounds, UA, a dibenzofuran derived from lichens, has the mechanical ability to modify its structure by creating a branch capable of forming a protective barrier. The mechanical ability of UA to protect cells from virus infection was investigated by analyzing the branching capacity of UA, and then the protection mechanism in an in vitro model was also studied. As expected, UA at 37 °C was able to create a barrier confirming its ramification property. At the same time, UA was able to block the infection of Vero E6 and HNEpC cells by interfering with a biological interaction between cells and viruses as revealed also by the UA quantification. Therefore, UA can block virus activity through a mechanical barrier effect without altering the physiological nasal homeostasis. The findings of this research could be of great relevance in view of the growing alarm regarding the spread of airborne viral diseases.

Therapeutic potential of recombinant human basic fibroblast growth factor on postoperative patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the effect of intranasal administration of recombinant human basic fibroblast growth factor (rh-bFGF) on postoperative chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) patients. DESIGN: A prospective, randomised, controlled, single-blinded trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five hospitalised patients who met the criteria of primary bilateral CRSwNP were enrolled from March 2020 to January 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analogue scale, 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test, Lund-Kennedy (L-K) system and scanning electron microscopy and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients with CRSwNP were randomly assigned to three groups, and 72 patients completed the 1-month medication regimen and 1-year follow-up. Rh-bFGF nasal-spray and drop application reduced general nasal VAS scores within 2 weeks after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared to the control group. In contrast, only rh-bFGF nasal-drops reduced SNOT-22 scores at 2 weeks and 1 year compared with the control group. A significant reduction in the endoscopic L-K score was observed in the rh-bFGF nasal-spray and drop group compared with the control group. This is primarily because rh-bFGF promotes cilia growth in the nasal mucosal epithelium after the operation, as illustrated by scanning electron microscopy and expression of CP110, Tap73 and Foxj1 mRNA. For eosinophilic CRSwNP, the general VAS score of rh-bFGF nasal-drops was more obviously reduced compared to the control group after ESS. A similar trend was observed for L-K score. CONCLUSIONS: Rh-bFGF nasal-drops and sprays can quickly and effectively relieve postoperative symptoms and improve long-term prognosis of patients with CRSwNP. Moreover, rh-bFGF nasal-drops is also an effective method for postoperative patients with eosinophilic CRSwNP.

Comparison of sinus distribution between nasal irrigation and nasal spray using fluorescein-labelled in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis: A randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the potential sinus distribution between high-volume nasal irrigation and nasal spray in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients who have not undergone sinus surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised clinical study was conducted at the Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery Department, Ramathibodi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University. PARTICIPANTS: Forty patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for CRS. Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to receive nasal irrigation or nasal spray mixed with fluorescein sodium preoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the mean difference in the staining score of fluorescein in all sinuses between the two groups. RESULTS: The total fluorescein staining score for all sinuses in the nasal irrigation group was significantly higher than the score from the nasal spray group, with a mean difference score of 2.90, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-4.58, p = .001. The most significantly affected sinuses were the maxillary and the anterior ethmoid sinuses, while the frontal and sphenoid sinuses had only minimal staining from both techniques. CONCLUSION: Nasal irrigation is a potential route to deliver drugs into the sinus in unoperated CRS patients. However, it is not considered a superior method to nasal spray in the most challenging anatomical areas, that is, the frontal and sphenoid sinuses.