In patients with acute nonpurulent rhinosinusitis, timely treatment with cineole is effective and safe before antibiotics are indicated.

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.

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.

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.

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.