The retention rate for LEV is significantly higher than for TPM. LEV had a more favourable side effect profile than TPM with comparable efficacy. Patients on TPM discontinued treatment mainly because of neurocognitive side effects. In the treatment with LEV, the effects on mood must not be underestimated.

Using posterior rhinomanometry, we measured nasal airflow resistance (Rn) and flow-resistive work of nasal breathing (WONB), with an external nasal dilator strip (ENDS) and without (control), in 15 healthy adults (6 men, 9 women) during exclusive nasal breathing and graded (50-230 W) exercise on a cycle ergometer. ENDS decreased resting inspiratory and/or expiratory Rn (at 0.4 l/s) by >0.5 cmH(2)O. l(-1). s in 11 subjects ("responders"). Inspired ventilation (VI) increased with external work rate, but tended to be greater with ENDS. Inspiratory and expiratory Rn (at 0.4 l/s) decreased as VI increased but, in responders, tended to remain lower with ENDS. Inspiratory (but not expiratory) Rn at peak nasal airflow (Vn) increased as VI increased but, again, was lower with ENDS. At a VI of approximately 35 l/min, ENDS decreased flow limitation and hysteresis of the inspiratory transnasal pressure-flow curve. In responders, ENDS reduced inspiratory WONB per breath and inspiratory nasal power values during exercise. We conclude that ENDS stiffens the lateral nasal vestibule walls and, in responders, may reduce the energy required for nasal ventilation during exercise.

We examined thermocouple and pressure cannulae responses to oral and nasal airflow using a polyester model of a human face, with patent nasal and oral orifices instrumented with a dual thermocouple (F-ONT2A, Grass) or a dual cannula (0588, Braebon) pressure transducer (± 10 cm H2O, Celesco) system. Tidal airflow was generated using a dual compartment facemask with pneumotachographs (Fleisch 2) connected to the model orifices. During nasal breathing: thermocouple amplitude = 0.38 Ln [pneumotachograph amplitude] + 1.31 and pressure cannula amplitude = 0.93 [pneumotachograph amplitude](2.15); during oral breathing: thermocouple amplitude = 0.44 Ln [pneumotachograph amplitude] + 1.07 and pressure cannula amplitude = 0.33 [pneumotachograph amplitude](1.72); (all range ∼ 0.1-∼ 4.0 L s(-1); r(2) > 0.7). For pneumotachograph amplitudes <1 L s(-1) (linear model) change in thermocouple amplitude/unit change in pneumotachograph amplitude was similar for nasal and oral airflow, whereas nasal pressure cannula amplitude/unit change in pneumotachograph amplitude was almost four times that for oral. Increasing oral orifice area from 0.33 cm(2) to 2.15 cm(2) increased oral thermocouple amplitude/unit change in pneumotachograph amplitude by ∼ 58% but decreased pressure cannula amplitude/unit change in pneumotachograph amplitude by 49%. For pneumotachograph amplitudes up to 1 L s(-1), alterations in inspiratory/expiratory ratios or total respiratory time did not affect the sensitivity of either nasal or oral pressure cannulae or the nasal thermocouple, but the oral thermocouple sensitivity was influenced by respiratory cycle time. Different nasal and oral responses influence the ability of these systems to quantitatively assess nasal and oral airflow and oro-nasal airflow partitioning.

No abstract