Cargando…

The Contribution of Galenics to Patients’ Sensory Perception of Nasal Sprays After Nasal Surgery: Data from a Prospective Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind, Crossover, Multicentre Study

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative care after nasal surgery is commonly achieved with nasal sprays. The current study compared two decongesting, wound-healing nasal sprays in patients after nasal surgery in order to investigate their sensory perception. One of the sprays was a new galenic formulation (nasi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bergmann, Christoph, Lander, Jennifer, Radtke, Lea, England, Laura, Singh, Jaswinder, Mösges, Ralph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34689304
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01937-x
_version_ 1784595172663754752
author Bergmann, Christoph
Lander, Jennifer
Radtke, Lea
England, Laura
Singh, Jaswinder
Mösges, Ralph
author_facet Bergmann, Christoph
Lander, Jennifer
Radtke, Lea
England, Laura
Singh, Jaswinder
Mösges, Ralph
author_sort Bergmann, Christoph
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Postoperative care after nasal surgery is commonly achieved with nasal sprays. The current study compared two decongesting, wound-healing nasal sprays in patients after nasal surgery in order to investigate their sensory perception. One of the sprays was a new galenic formulation (nasic(®) neo, Cassella-med GmbH & Co. KG). METHODS: According to the crossover design, patients who had undergone nasal surgery applied two different nasal sprays during two treatment periods of 4 days each, interrupted by a 3-day washout period. Sensory perception of the nasal sprays was assessed with the nasal spray sensoric scale. Throughout the study, nasal obstruction was evaluated by patients, and physical examinations, measurements of vital parameters and rhinoscopic examinations were carried out by investigators. Adverse events were documented during the entire study, and following treatment, patients judged the overall preference, efficacy and tolerability of both products. RESULTS: Overall, no significant differences in sum scores of the assessments of the nasal spray sensoric scale were observed between treatments. A significant period effect observed during the crossover study limited the overall analysis. Nevertheless, significantly more patients preferred the new galenics nasal spray compared to the comparator spray (57.1% vs. 34.7%; p = 0.031). Further, 10% more patients rated the efficacy of the new galenics as ‘good’ to ‘very good’ compared to the comparator. Importantly, a subgroup population of patients with more pronounced signs of inflammation present at screening evaluated the sensory perception of the new galenics as significantly better (p = 0.033) compared to the comparator. Within this subgroup, no period effect was observed. The application of both nasal sprays was shown to be safe and well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: The overall sensory perception of both nasal sprays was evaluated comparably well in patients after nasal surgery and overall the application of the new galenics nasal spray was preferred by significantly more patients compared to the comparator nasal spray. Patients with marked nasal abnormalities may have a greater benefit from the contribution of galenics as significant differences in the sensory evaluation by the nasal spray sensoric scale in favour of the new galenics product were shown for this subgroup. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The current study was registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register with the EudraCT No. 2019-004936-52. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01937-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8572192
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85721922021-11-15 The Contribution of Galenics to Patients’ Sensory Perception of Nasal Sprays After Nasal Surgery: Data from a Prospective Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind, Crossover, Multicentre Study Bergmann, Christoph Lander, Jennifer Radtke, Lea England, Laura Singh, Jaswinder Mösges, Ralph Adv Ther Brief Report INTRODUCTION: Postoperative care after nasal surgery is commonly achieved with nasal sprays. The current study compared two decongesting, wound-healing nasal sprays in patients after nasal surgery in order to investigate their sensory perception. One of the sprays was a new galenic formulation (nasic(®) neo, Cassella-med GmbH & Co. KG). METHODS: According to the crossover design, patients who had undergone nasal surgery applied two different nasal sprays during two treatment periods of 4 days each, interrupted by a 3-day washout period. Sensory perception of the nasal sprays was assessed with the nasal spray sensoric scale. Throughout the study, nasal obstruction was evaluated by patients, and physical examinations, measurements of vital parameters and rhinoscopic examinations were carried out by investigators. Adverse events were documented during the entire study, and following treatment, patients judged the overall preference, efficacy and tolerability of both products. RESULTS: Overall, no significant differences in sum scores of the assessments of the nasal spray sensoric scale were observed between treatments. A significant period effect observed during the crossover study limited the overall analysis. Nevertheless, significantly more patients preferred the new galenics nasal spray compared to the comparator spray (57.1% vs. 34.7%; p = 0.031). Further, 10% more patients rated the efficacy of the new galenics as ‘good’ to ‘very good’ compared to the comparator. Importantly, a subgroup population of patients with more pronounced signs of inflammation present at screening evaluated the sensory perception of the new galenics as significantly better (p = 0.033) compared to the comparator. Within this subgroup, no period effect was observed. The application of both nasal sprays was shown to be safe and well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: The overall sensory perception of both nasal sprays was evaluated comparably well in patients after nasal surgery and overall the application of the new galenics nasal spray was preferred by significantly more patients compared to the comparator nasal spray. Patients with marked nasal abnormalities may have a greater benefit from the contribution of galenics as significant differences in the sensory evaluation by the nasal spray sensoric scale in favour of the new galenics product were shown for this subgroup. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The current study was registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register with the EudraCT No. 2019-004936-52. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01937-x. Springer Healthcare 2021-10-24 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8572192/ /pubmed/34689304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01937-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Brief Report
Bergmann, Christoph
Lander, Jennifer
Radtke, Lea
England, Laura
Singh, Jaswinder
Mösges, Ralph
The Contribution of Galenics to Patients’ Sensory Perception of Nasal Sprays After Nasal Surgery: Data from a Prospective Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind, Crossover, Multicentre Study
title The Contribution of Galenics to Patients’ Sensory Perception of Nasal Sprays After Nasal Surgery: Data from a Prospective Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind, Crossover, Multicentre Study
title_full The Contribution of Galenics to Patients’ Sensory Perception of Nasal Sprays After Nasal Surgery: Data from a Prospective Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind, Crossover, Multicentre Study
title_fullStr The Contribution of Galenics to Patients’ Sensory Perception of Nasal Sprays After Nasal Surgery: Data from a Prospective Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind, Crossover, Multicentre Study
title_full_unstemmed The Contribution of Galenics to Patients’ Sensory Perception of Nasal Sprays After Nasal Surgery: Data from a Prospective Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind, Crossover, Multicentre Study
title_short The Contribution of Galenics to Patients’ Sensory Perception of Nasal Sprays After Nasal Surgery: Data from a Prospective Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind, Crossover, Multicentre Study
title_sort contribution of galenics to patients’ sensory perception of nasal sprays after nasal surgery: data from a prospective randomised, controlled, double-blind, crossover, multicentre study
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34689304
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01937-x
work_keys_str_mv AT bergmannchristoph thecontributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT landerjennifer thecontributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT radtkelea thecontributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT englandlaura thecontributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT singhjaswinder thecontributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT mosgesralph thecontributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT bergmannchristoph contributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT landerjennifer contributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT radtkelea contributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT englandlaura contributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT singhjaswinder contributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy
AT mosgesralph contributionofgalenicstopatientssensoryperceptionofnasalspraysafternasalsurgerydatafromaprospectiverandomisedcontrolleddoubleblindcrossovermulticentrestudy