Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2013 Jul;29(7):739-46. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2013.800474. Epub 2013 May 14.
In this observational study, data on the efficacy, effects on quality of life and tolerability of the topical formulation SNS01 (Ectoin Rhinitis nasal spray) were compared to those of BNO-101 (Sinupret forte dragées) in patients with acute rhinosinusitis in the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) clinical setting.
Patients with the diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis were included in this non-interventional study with a treatment duration of 14-16 days. They received either a herbal phytotherapeutic dragée (control) or an ectoine-based nasal spray (investigational product), each to be taken according to the instructions for use (IFU) and summary of product characteristics (SPC). At each visit, the physician performed a nasal endoscopy, recorded the Sinusitis Symptom Score and checked for adverse events. During the entire treatment period, patients recorded the Sinusitis Symptom Score in patient diaries. In addition, patients receiving the nasal spray filled out a questionnaire to assess the tolerability of the treatment. To investigate effects on quality of life patients were asked to fill out the German version of a sinusitis-specific HRQL (health related quality of life) questionnaire.
NCT01684540.
Patient diary entries, the assessment of the Sinusitis Symptom Score and the HRQL questionnaire demonstrated that the ectoine nasal spray was as effective as the phytotherapeutic dragées in treating acute rhinosinusitis. After two weeks of treatment, the assessments of both the patients' diaries and physicians' record forms indicated statistically significant improvement (p ≤ 0.001) in the symptom scores of the two groups (57.8% improvement for ectoine and 49.3% improvement for the phytotherapeutic dragées compared to baseline). Also, overall scores of 80 in the sensory questionnaire confirmed the good tolerability of the nasal spray. Correspondingly, HRQL improved significantly over the course of the treatment in both groups.
SNS01 and BNO-101 demonstrated comparable effects in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.
Following German regulations, this trial was set up as an observational 'non-interventional' study, which does not allow for a placebo group or randomization of patients. Although the grade of evidence delivered by the study data is thus reduced from Ib to IIa, it does, however, reflect a realistic view of the most common clinical practice.
在这项观察性研究中,比较了局部制剂 SNS01(Ectoin 鼻炎喷雾剂)与 BNO-101(Sinupret forte 硬胶囊)在耳鼻喉科(ENT)临床环境中治疗急性鼻-鼻窦炎患者的疗效、对生活质量的影响和耐受性。
这项非干预性研究纳入了诊断为急性鼻-鼻窦炎的患者,治疗持续时间为 14-16 天。他们分别接受草药植物药硬胶囊(对照)或基于氨基酸的鼻喷雾剂(研究产品)治疗,每种药物均根据使用说明(IFU)和产品特性摘要(SPC)使用。每次就诊时,医生均进行鼻内窥镜检查,记录鼻窦炎症状评分并检查不良事件。在整个治疗期间,患者在患者日记中记录鼻窦炎症状评分。此外,接受鼻喷雾剂治疗的患者填写了一份问卷,以评估治疗的耐受性。为了调查对生活质量的影响,患者被要求填写德国版鼻窦炎特定 HRQL(健康相关生活质量)问卷。
NCT01684540。
患者日记条目、鼻窦炎症状评分评估和 HRQL 问卷表明,氨基酸鼻喷雾剂治疗急性鼻-鼻窦炎的疗效与植物药硬胶囊相当。治疗两周后,患者日记和医生记录表格的评估均表明两组的症状评分均有统计学显著改善(p≤0.001)(氨基酸组改善 57.8%,植物药组改善 49.3%,与基线相比)。此外,感觉问卷的总分 80 分证实了鼻喷雾剂的良好耐受性。相应地,两组患者的 HRQL 在治疗过程中均显著改善。
SNS01 和 BNO-101 在治疗急性鼻-鼻窦炎方面具有相当的疗效。
根据德国法规,这项试验作为观察性“非干预性”研究进行,不允许设立安慰剂组或对患者进行随机分组。尽管研究数据提供的证据等级因此从 Ib 降低到 IIa,但它确实反映了最常见临床实践的真实情况。