Objectives: Nocturia with or without asthma is one of the aging diseases. Desmopressin has been used as a nasal spray for patients who are suffering from nocturia. This study determined the effects of desmopressin on isolated tracheal smooth muscle in vitro. Methods: We evaluated desmopressin\'s efficiency on isolated rat tracheal smooth muscle. Desmopressin was evaluated for the following effects on tracheal smooth muscle: (1) effect on resting tension; (2) effect on contraction brought on by parasympathetic mimetic 10-6 M methacholine; and (3) effect on electrically produced tracheal smooth muscle contractions. Results: As the concentration grew, desmopressin by itself had no impact on the trachea\'s baseline tension. Addition of desmopressin at doses of 10-5 M or above elicited a significant relaxation response to 10-6 M methacholine-induced contraction. Desmopressin could also inhibit spike contraction of the trachea induced by electrical field. Conclusion: According to this study, desmopressin at high quantities may prevent the trachea\'s parasympathetic activity. Due to its ability to block parasympathetic activity and lessen the contraction of the tracheal smooth muscle brought on by methacholine, Desmopressin nasal spray might help nocturia sufferers experience fewer asthma attacks.

UNASSIGNED: Nasal sprays are widely used in treating nasal and sinus diseases; however, there are very few studies on the drug delivery efficiency of nasal sprays. In this study, the drug delivery efficiency of three different nasal spray devices was evaluated in vitro using a 3D printed cast model of nasal cavity.
UNASSIGNED: Three nasal spray devices with different nozzles and angles of administration were used in the 3D model of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. The spraying area (SA), maximal spraying distance (MSD), and spraying distribution scores on the nasal septum and lateral nasal wall were recorded.
UNASSIGNED: Different nasal spray devices have their own characteristics, including volume of each spray, SA, and plume angle. The SA of the three nozzles on the nasal septum increased with an increasing angle of administration. When the angle of administration was 50°, each nozzle reached the maximal SA. There was no statistically significant difference in MSD among the three nozzles at the three angles. The total scores for each nozzle using the three different spraying angles were as follows: nozzle A, 40° > 30° > 50°; nozzle B, 30° > 40° > 50°; and nozzle C, 30° > 40° > 50°. The total scores for different nozzles using the same angle were statistically significantly different and the scores for nozzle C were the highest. Nozzle C had the minimum plume angle. None of the three nozzles could effectively delivered drugs into the middle meatus at any angle in this model.
UNASSIGNED: The design of the nozzle affects drug delivery efficiency of nasal spray devices. The ideal angle of administration is 50°. The nozzle with smaller plume angle has higher drug delivery efficiency. Current nasal spray devices can easily deliver drugs to most areas of the nasal cavity, such as the turbinate, nasal septum, olfactory fissure, and nasopharynx, but not the middle meatus. These findings are meaningful for nozzle selection and device improvements.

OBJECTIVE: PA9159 (previously named VSG159) is a structurally novel and highly potent glucocorticoid that plays a role in the late development of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. The current first-in-human ascending-dose study of the PA9159 nasal spray was conducted in healthy Chinese volunteers to evaluate its pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability. In addition, the effects of PA9159 on serum cortisol secretion were investigated.
METHODS: This was a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study that included four single-dose groups in the single ascending dose cohort (SAD) and two multiple-dose groups in the multiple ascending dose cohort (MAD), with dose ranges of 10-80 μg and 20-40 μg, respectively. PA9159 was administered bilaterally via nasal spray once only or once daily for seven days. Pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability profiles were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 60 participants completed the study. PA9159 doses of up to 80 μg in the SAD and up to 40 μg in the MAD were shown to be safe and tolerable. The most common treatment-related AEs were mild and transient local nasal AEs. Morning serum cortisol levels approximately remained unchanged in both the single-dose and multiple-dose groups. PA9159 was quantified in 41.8 % (368/880) of the samples in all treatment groups, including 25.2 % (105/416) of the SAD and 56.7 % (263/464) of the MAD. The majority (>80.0 %) of PA9159 plasma concentrations ranged from 0.5 to 2 pg/mL in determined samples. The mean AUC0-t of PA9159 in the SAD was 0.91, 1.39±0.68, 11.40±9.91, and 46.30±25.80 h*pg/mL in the 10 to 80 ug single group. The mean terminal half-life time (t1/2) was 8.43 h and 8.97±2.28 h in 40 ug and 80 ug single group, respectively. The mean AUCss of PA9159 in the MAD was 31.70±7.04, 44.20±20.60 h*pg /mL, and the t1/2 was 16.00±4.18 h, 21.20±10.20 h in the 20 ug and 40 ug multiple groups, respectively. The median Tmax was approximately 6 h in both the SAD and MAD cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: The PA9159 nasal spray was generally safe and well tolerated, and the effects of PA9159 on serum cortisol levels were limited. The plasma concentration and systemic exposure to PA9159 were very low. These findings support the necessity for further clinical studies on PA9159 nasal spray in patients suffering from allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUNDAs Omicron is prompted to replicate in the upper airway, neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) delivered through inhalation might inhibit early-stage infection in the respiratory tract. Thus, elucidating the prophylactic efficacy of NAbs via nasal spray addresses an important clinical need.METHODSThe applicable potential of a nasal spray cocktail containing 2 NAbs was characterized by testing its neutralizing potency, synergetic neutralizing mechanism, emergency protective and therapeutic efficacy in a hamster model, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) in human nasal cavity.RESULTSThe 2 NAbs displayed broad neutralizing efficacy against Omicron, and they could structurally compensate each other in blocking the Spike-ACE2 interaction. When administrated through the intranasal mucosal route, this cocktail demonstrated profound efficacy in the emergency prevention in hamsters challenged with authentic Omicron BA.1. The investigator-initiated trial in healthy volunteers confirmed the safety and the PK/PD of the NAb cocktail delivered via nasal spray. Nasal samples from the participants receiving 4 administrations over a course of 16 hours demonstrated potent neutralization against Omicron BA.5 in an ex vivo pseudovirus neutralization assay.CONCLUSIONThese results demonstrate that the NAb cocktail nasal spray provides a good basis for clinical prophylactic efficacy against Omicron infections.TRIAL REGISTRATIONwww.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2200066525.FUNDINGThe National Science and Technology Major Project (2017ZX10202203), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFA0507100), Guangzhou National Laboratory (SRPG22-015), Lingang Laboratory (LG202101-01-07), Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (YDZX20213100001556), and the Emergency Project from the Science & Technology Commission of Chongqing (cstc2021jscx-fyzxX0001).

Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) is characterized by a gradual decline in cognitive function and memory impairment, significantly impacting the daily lives of patients. Rivastigmine (RHT), a cholinesterase inhibitor, is used to treat mild to moderate AD via oral administration. However, oral administration is associated with slow absorption rate and severe systemic side effects. RHT nasal spray (RHT-ns), as a nose-to-brain delivery system, is more promising for AD management due to its efficient brain delivery and reduced peripheral exposure. This study constructed RHT-ns for enhancing AD treatment efficacy, and meanwhile the correlation between drug olfactory deposition and drug entering into the brain was explored. A 3D-printed nasal cast was employed to quantify the drug olfactory deposition. Brain delivery of RHT-ns was quantified using fluorescence tracking and Desorption Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry (DESI-MS) analysis, which showed a good correlation to the olfactory deposition. F2 (containing 1% (w/v) viscosity modifier Avicel® RC-591) with high olfactory deposition and drug brain delivery was further investigated for pharmacodynamics study. F2 exhibited superiority in AD treatment over the commercially available oral formulation. In summary, the present study showed the successful development of RHT-ns with improved olfactory deposition and enhanced brain delivery. It might provide new insight into the design and development of nose-to-brain systems for the treatment of AD.

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.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGDs) are key symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which may lead to neurological complications, and lack of effective treatment. This may be because post-disease treatments may be too late to protect the olfactory and gustatory functions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of early use of saline nasal irrigation (SNI), corticosteroid nasal spray, and saline or chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash for preventing OGDs in COVID-19.
METHODS: This study was a double-blind randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: The study was conducted from 5 May to 16 June 2022. We recruited patients from three hospitals who were admitted with COVID-19 but without OGDs on the day of admission. Olfactory and gustatory functions were evaluated using the Taste and Smell Survey and the numerical visual analog scale. Participants were randomized to the saline, drug or control groups. The control group received no intervention, saline group received SNI plus saline nasal spray and mouthwash, and the trial group received SNI plus budesonide nasal spray and chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash. Participants were assessed again on the day of discharge.
RESULTS: A total of 379 patients completed the trial. The prevalence of OGDs was significantly lower in the saline (11.8%, 95% CI, 6.6-19.0%; P < 0.001) and drug (8.3%, 95% CI, 4.1-14.8%; P < 0.001) groups than in the control group (40.0%, 95% CI, 31.8-48.6%). Additionally, both interventions reduced the severity of OGDs.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated effective strategies for preventing COVID-19-related OGDs, and the findings may guide early management of severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection to reduce the incidence of COVID-19-related complications.

Following the national dynamic zero-COVID strategy adjustment, the utilization of broad-spectrum nasal neutralizing antibodies may offer an alternative approach to controlling the outbreak of Omicron variants between late 2022 and early 2023 in China. This study involved an investigator-initiated trial (IIT) to assess the pharmacokinetic, safety and efficacy of the F61 nasal spray. A total of 2,008 participants were randomly assigned to receive F61 nasal spray (24 mg/0.8 mL/dose) or normal saline (0.8 mL/dose) and 1336 completed the follow-up in the IIT. Minimal absorption of F61 antibody into the bloodstream was detected in individuals receiving F61 nasal spray for seven consecutive days. No treatment-emergent adverse reactions of grade 3 severity or higher were reported. In the one-dose cohort, the 7-day cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 79.0% in the F61 group and 82.6% in the placebo group, whereas, in the multiple-dose (once daily for 7 consecutive days) cohort, the rates were 6.55% in the F61 group and 23.83% in the placebo group. The laboratory-confirmed efficacy of F61 was 3.78% (-3.74%-10.75%) in the one-dose cohort and 72.19% (57.33%-81.87%) in the multiple-dose cohort. In the real-world study, 60,225 volunteers in four different regions were administered the F61 nasal spray based on the subject\'s wishes, over 90% efficacy rate was observed against different Omicron variants. The F61 nasal spray, with its favourable safety profile, could be a promising prophylactic monoclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2 VOCs.

OBJECTIVE: A retrospective study was conducted to investigate the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray combined with mussel mucin in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the effects of CCL26 and CC chemokine receptor-3 (CCR3).
METHODS: A total of 80 patients with AR admitted to our hospital from March 2020 to March 2022 were included as the research objects. All subjects were divided into two groups according to the different therapeutic strategies by reviewing the patient\'s treatment. The control group (n = 40) was given azelastine nasal spray, while the study group (n = 40) was treated with a combination of mussel mucin and azelastine nasal spray. The clinical efficacy, clinical symptoms, and sleep quality improvement of the two groups were calculated and compared retrospectively. The serological indexes were compared, and the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups was calculated retrospectively based on the patient\'s medical records.
RESULTS: In the study and control groups, the effective rate was 95.00% and 72.50%. After treatment, the symptom scores of nasal congestions, nasal itching, sneezing, and runny nose and the total score of Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) in the study group were remarkably less. After treatment, the serum levels of sVCAM-1, interleukin-4 (IL-4), and immunoglobulin E (IgE) were decreased, and the levels of IL-12 were upregulated. Following treatment, Minimum nasal cross-section (NMCA) and total nasal resistance (TNR) at 75Pa in the study group were reduced more noticeably (p < 0.05). After treatment, the expression levels of CCL26 and CCR3 in peripheral blood were significantly decreased. In the control and study groups, the incidence of adverse reactions was 7.50% and 10.00%.
CONCLUSIONS: Azelastine nasal spray combined with mussel mucin is effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, which can effectively improve patients\' clinical symptoms, alleviate nasal ventilation disorders, reduce inflammatory reactions, and improve sleep quality. This strategy of combined treatment is safe and, therefore, worth advocating.

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.