BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2021 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 |Article ID 5562623 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5562623

Andreas Bilstein, Nina Werkhäuser, Anna Rybachuk, Ralph Mösges, "The Effectiveness of the Bacteria Derived Extremolyte Ectoine for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis", BioMed Research International, vol. 2021, Article ID 5562623, 16 pages, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5562623

The Effectiveness of the Bacteria Derived Extremolyte Ectoine for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Academic Editor: Luisa Brussino
Received28 Jan 2021
Accepted20 May 2021
Published01 Jun 2021

Abstract

Nonpharmacological therapies with a good tolerability and safety profile are of interest to many patients with allergic rhinitis, as a relevant proportion of them have reservations about guideline-concordant pharmacological therapies due to their local irritations and side effects. Ectoine is a bacterial-derived extremolyte with an ability to protect proteins and biological membranes against damage caused by extreme conditions of salinity, drought, irradiation, pH, and temperature. Evidence from preclinical and clinical studies attests its effectiveness in the treatment of several inflammatory diseases, including allergic rhinitis. In this review, we analyzed 14 recent clinical trials investigating ectoine nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis and/or conjunctivitis, including sensitive patient groups like children or pregnant women. Some studies investigated monotherapy with ectoine; others investigated combination therapy of ectoine and an antihistamine or a corticosteroid. Analysis of the study results demonstrated that patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms of allergic rhinitis can be successfully treated with ectoine-containing nasal spray. When applied as monotherapy, ectoine exerted noninferior effects compared to first-line therapies such as antihistamines and cromoglicic acid. Using ectoine as an add-on therapy to antihistamines or intranasal glucocorticosteroids accelerated symptom relief by days and improved the level of symptom relief. Importantly, concomitant treatment with ectoine was proven beneficial in a group of difficult-to-treat patients suffering from moderate-to-severe rhinitis symptoms. Taken together, the natural substance ectoine represents a viable alternative for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis patients who wish to avoid local reactions and side effects associated with pharmacological therapies.

1. Introduction

Ectoine is a natural extremolyte found in bacteria which grows under extreme conditions of salinity, drought, irradiation, pH, and temperature [1, 2]. Ectoine binds strongly to water molecules [3], thereby forming a protective hydrate shield around proteins and other biomolecules [4]. It works via a mechanism known as “preferential exclusion” [5]; i.e., it is preferentially excluded from the hydrate shield, leading to the alteration of the aqueous solvent structure [6, 7], which protects proteins from damage and irreversible denaturation and stabilizes biological membranes [3, 810]. In preclinical studies, ectoine was shown to protect lung and skin cells against the damage induced by toxic pollution particles and to prevent the subsequent activation of inflammatory cascades [1116]. A similar effect was observed in model systems for inflammatory bowel disease [17]. Promising findings from clinical trials harnessed ectoine as a therapeutic agent for several inflammatory diseases such as atopic dermatitis [18], upper airway inflammations like pharyngitis/laryngitis [19, 20], rhinosinusitis and acute bronchitis [21] as reviewed by Casale and colleagues [22], rhinitis sicca [23], chemotherapy-induced mucositis [24], and also lung inflammation caused by environmental pollutants [25], even in long-term applications in children to prevent upper respiratory infections [26] or treatment of vernal keratoconjunctivitis [27].

The global prevalence of all allergic diseases is reported to be 20-30% [28], resulting in a high pressure on the social economic systems. The Global Allergy and Asthma European Network report indicated that cost savings of over EUR 100 billion could be realistically expected through better treatment of allergic diseases [29]. The 2008 and 2020 Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guideline provides physicians with a treatment algorithm for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis depending on the severity and duration of symptoms [30, 31]. Pharmacological therapies with oral/topical antihistamines, intranasal glucocorticosteroids (INCS), oral glucocorticosteroids, decongestants, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and cromones are considered the mainstay of allergic rhinitis treatment. However, despite the myriad of treatment options with pharmacological drugs, a relevant proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms are still not sufficiently treated [3236]. For instance, a study reported that about 60% of allergic rhinitis sufferers in the U.S. are “very interested” in trying out new medications [37]. Furthermore, some patients are reluctant to use pharmacological therapies for fear of local irritations and side effects associated with sedative antihistamines as well as tachyphylaxis under long-term use of nasal decongestants, which can lead to poor medication compliance [38, 39]. Therefore, nonpharmacological therapies with an advantageous tolerability and safety profile are of interest to many patients with allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis.

For treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, ectoine nasal sprays and eye drops are already on the market as medical devices in several countries. Eichel and colleagues have published a meta-analysis on selected clinical studies recently [40]. Since the ectoine nasal spray was the first ectoine-containing product envisioned as a nonpharmacological therapeutic agent for allergic rhinitis, a considerable number of clinical trials with this product have meanwhile been performed. Following the initial controlled trials comparing ectoine to standard pharmacological therapies, several real-life, interventional, or noninterventional trials have been conducted. In this article, we systematically reviewed the literature on treatment of allergic rhinitis with ectoine-based nasal sprays to disseminate the most current evidence for the treatment of allergic rhinitis with this interesting substance.

2. Methods

This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [41]. In order to evaluate the quality of the selected studies, a Jadad score was allocated for each trial to assess methodological quality [42] as indicated in Table 1.


Authors, year, study location [reference]Indication of studyComparatorStudy design of patients (total and by groups)Patient population, age (years) of participantsInclusion criteria/exclusion criteria (only AR-specific criteria listed)Treatment duration, dosage, and number of visitsOutcome parametersReported side effectsJadad scale (criteria)

Minaeva and Shiryaeva, 2015, Russia [50]Allergic rhinitisOral antihistamineR, C, OLTotal: 50
: 30 antihistamine alone: 20
Children & adolescents
Age range: 3-17
Mean age: 10.6
Inclusion: diagnosis of seasonal AR, sensitization to tree pollen, received an antihistamine product
Exclusion: taking INS
21-day (3 weeks) treatment
Ectoine: 3-4 times daily
Antihistamine: age-appropriate dose
3 visits
Nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, itching, sneezingNo AE reported3 (A, B, E)
Abdulkerimov et al., 2016, Russia [46]Allergic rhinitisIntranasal glucocorticoidR, C, OLTotal: 90
Ectoine alone: 30
INS alone: 30
: 30
Adults
Age range: 18-65
Mean age: not assessed
Inclusion: diagnosed intermittent AR, during a period of exacerbation of symptoms, admissible accompanying pharmacotherapy
Exclusion: pregnant and nursing women, intolerance to one of the substances, usage of other antiallergy agents, nose surgery within 6 weeks before the study, signs of bacterial disease, flu, antibacterial treatment, stomatic disease
60-day treatment
Ectoine: 1-2 sprays 3 times a day
INS: 2 doses once a day
4 visits
Sneezing, itching, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, dry mucosa, cough, fatigue, eosinophils, unpleasant smell in the rhinopharynx, rhinoscopy status, video endoscopic investigation status of the nasal cavity, cytological investigation status of the nasal secretionNo AE reported for the ectoine treatment, 4 patients from the INS-alone group reported increased dryness of the nasal mucosa2 (A, B)
Kayb et al., 2016, Russia [51]Allergic rhinitisAnti-inflammatory therapy (standard of care)C, OLTotal: 60
therapy: 30
Anti-inflammatory therapy alone: 30
Children & adolescents
Age range: 5-17
Mean age: not assessed
Inclusion: diagnosed seasonal allergic rhinitis,
Exclusion: AR flare-ups associated with an acute respiratory disease with increased body temperature, as well as children with an AR flare-up, atopic dermatitis, and bronchial asthma
28-day treatment (4 weeks)
Ectoine: as prescribed
Anti-inflammatory: as prescribed
4 visits
Rhinorrhea, paroxysmal sneezing, nasal congestion clinical manifestations of the flare-ups and the severity of AR in the courseNo AE reported1 (E)
Bardenikova et al., 2016, Russia [52]Allergic rhinitisINSOL, CTotal: 30
Ectoine: 17
: 13
Children & adolescents
Age range: 7-17
Mean age: 12.4
Inclusion: diagnosis of all year-round AR (mild and moderate severity) with clinically significant sensitization to house allergens. The patients were enrolled while experiencing exacerbation of persistent AR, with a total score for nasal symptoms (TNSS) of 2 points or more
Exclusion: seasonal exacerbations caused by associated pollinosis
21-day treatment
Ectoine: 2 doses per nostril, 3 times per day
INS: as prescribed
2 visits
TNSS, rhinoscopy status, rhinocytogram status, tolerability, compliance, adverse effects, blood test, cytomorphology (cell count), pediatric ACT, eosinophilic cytosis3 AEs were reported. 2 increased sneezing immediately following application of the spray; 1 short nasal bleeding during the administration1 (E)
Skosarev et al., 2015, Kazakhstan [53]Allergic rhinitisStandard of careOL, CTotal: 36
Ectoine: 18
Standard of care: 18
Children & adolescents
Age range: not assessed
Mean age: not assessed
Inclusion: children with diagnosis of AR10-day treatment
Ectoine: as prescribed
Standard of care: as prescribed
Itchiness, periodic sneezing, coughing, voice changes, night snoring, emotional profilesNo information given0
Salapatek et al., 2011, Canada [43] (manuscript accepted for publication)Allergic rhinoconjunctivitisPlaceboR, CTotal: 46
Ectoine: 46
Placebo: 46
Adults
Age range: 18-65
Mean age:
Inclusion: history of seasonal AR, positive skin prick test, ,
Exclusion: usage of antiallergic medication before study start and throughout the study
14-day treatment per treatment type crossover after 7 days washout
Ectoine: 1 spray/nostril 3 times per day
Placebo: 1 spray/nostril 3 times per day
5 visits
Primary: TNSS (including sneezing, itchy nose, runny nose and nasal congestion) and TOSS (including watery eye, itchy eye, red eye)
Secondary: TNNSS (including watery eye, itchy eye, red eye, and itchy ear/palate), and acoustic rhinometry measurements
6 AEs reported during ectoine treatment. During placebo treatment, 5 AEs were reported. No SAEs occurred5 (A-E)
Sonnemann et al., 2014, Germany [47]Allergic rhinitisBeclomethasoneOL, NI, CTotal: 50
Ectoine: 25
Beclomethasone: 25
Adults
Age range: 18-65
Mean age: 33.3
Inclusion: 18-70 years, diagnosed seasonal allergic rhinitis,
Exclusion: not described
14-day treatment
Ectoine: 3 times daily,
Beclomethasone (0.05 mg): 2 times daily,
2 visits
Primary: nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, nasal itching, sneezing
Secondary: itchy ear/palate, efficacy, tolerability
3 AEs, 2 in the ectoine group (not related), 1 in the beclomethasone group (probably related)1 (E)
Werkhäuser et al., 2014, Germany [49]Allergic rhinitisAzelastineOL, NI, CTotal: 48
Ectoine: 22
Azelastine: 26
Adults
Age range:18-65
Mean age: 35
Inclusion: patients aged 18-70, proven allergy in prick test, acute symptoms in nose and eyes
Exclusion: pregnant and nursing women, drug addicts, patients with intolerance against ingredients of treatments, previous eye or nose surgery
7-day treatment
Ectoine: one eye drop per eye and one puff of the nasal spray per nostril four times per day
Azelastine: One eye drop, one puff nasal spray, both twice per day
2 visits
Nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing nasal itching, conjunctivitis, eye itching, tearing, palate itching8 AEs: 2 cases of burning of eyes and itching of the throat in the ectoine group, and 6 (4 cases of burning of eyes, 1 case of nausea, and 1 case of headache) in the azelastine group1 (E)
No SAE occurred
Werkhäuser et al., 2014, Germany [49]Allergic rhinitisCromoglicic acidOL, NI, CTotal: 50
Ectoine: 25
Cromoglicic acid: 25
Adults
Age range: 18-65
Mean age: 35
Inclusion: patients aged 18-70, proven allergy in prick test, acute symptoms in the nose and eyes
Exclusion: pregnant and nursing women, drug addicts, patients with intolerance against ingredients of treatments, previous eye or nose surgery
14-day treatment crossover after 7 days
Ectoine: 5 times per day, cromoglicic acid (20 mg/ml): nasal spray 4 times per day
3 visits
Nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing nasal itching, conjunctivitis, eye itching, tearing, palate itchingDuring the study, no SAE occurred1 (E)
No AEs were observed for ectoine containing nasal spray; 15 AEs were recorded for the cromoglicic acid nasal spray
Kryuchko et al., 2014, Ukraine [55]Allergic rhinitisSea salt solutionOL, NI, CTotal: 60
Ectoine: 38
Sea salt solution: 22
Children & adolescents
Age range: 6-14
Mean age: not assessed
Inclusion: sensitized to pollen allergens, sufficient compliance, patients applying antihistamines on demand
Exclusion: not described
14-day treatment
Ectoine: as prescribed
Control: as prescribed
5 visits
Activity, sleep, nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, emotionsNo adverse effects reported0
Ryabova et al., 2019, Russia [54]Allergic rhinitisNoneOLTotal: 45
Group persistent allergic rhinitis: 25
Group intermittent allergic rhinitis: 20
Pregnant women
Age range: 18-40
Mean age:
Inclusion: pregnancy, proven case of AR at the time of examination, aged 18 to 40 years, presence of 2 or more typical signs of AR, bright-red mucosa in aggravated seasonal allergic rhinitis, cyanotic or gray mucosa in perennial allergic rhinitis, the mucosa spotting (“marbling”) (Voyachek’s symptom)
Exclusion: present infectious diseases, history of alcohol or drug abuse, problems that may limit the patient’s ability to follow the protocol requirements, participation in another clinical trial during the three months preceding the screening visit, any other conditions that make it difficult to participate in the study
All patients received 1-2 doses of ectoine 3-4 times a day or for 10 days before contact with allergensRhinoscopy status, laboratory tests, mucociliary clearanceNone reported1 (E)
Kamaev and Трусоbа, 2015, Russia [48]Allergic rhinitisNoneOLTotal: 50
: 22
: 28
Children & adolescents
Age range: not assessed
Mean age: not assessed
Inclusion: diagnosis of persistent AR, domestic or epidermal sensitization, exacerbation of the disease at the first visit
Exclusion criteria not described
4 weeks of treatment
Treatments as prescribed
3 visits
Rhinocytogram status, eosinophil count (laboratory test), result of the anterior rhinoscopy, result of the TNSSAEs reported during the study were resolved completely by days 8 to 15 of administration0
Mokronosova et al., 2017, Russia [45]Allergic rhinitisNoneOL, NITotal: 34
Ectoine: 34
Adults
Age range: 20-45
Mean age: not assessed
Inclusion: confirmed mono allergy to tree pollen, mild-moderate IAR, two courses of ASIT
Exclusion: severe IAR, noncompliance, nose surgery, use of antiallergic drugs
Max. 37-day treatment
Ectoine: 1-2 sprays 3-4 times daily (or as necessary)
2 visits
Nasal obstruction, sneezing, nasal itching, skin test, laboratory test with specific serum IgE antibodies, cytological analysis of nasal secretions, otorhinolaryngological examinationNo AE reported1 (E)
Mokronosova et al., 2019, Russia [44]Allergic rhinitisNoneOL, NITotal: 30
Ectoine: 30
Adults
Age range: 18-60
Mean age: not assessed
Inclusion: tree pollen sensitization confirmed positive test for IgE antibodies
Exclusion: severe IAR, noncompliance, nose surgery, use of antiallergic drug
7-day treatment
Ectoine: 1-2 sprays 3-4 times daily (or as necessary)
2 visits
Nasal obstruction, sneezing, nasal itching, skin test, laboratory test with specific serum IgE antibodies, cytological analysis of nasal secretions, otorhinolaryngological examinationNo AE reported0

Study design: randomized (R); controlled (C); open-label (OL); noninterventional (NI).
2.1. Objectives and Search Strategy

Initial search databases were PubMed, Google Scholar, and Ovid; search language was English. After the search in Google Scholar and PubMed reported several articles in Russian and Ukrainian language, we extended the search to Elibrary.ru and to the National Library of Ukraine and included Russian/Ukrainian language as search criterion. The country of origin and languages were not limited; the period was set to the beginning of 2010 to 15-Nov-2020.

The following key word/medical subject headings were used as search terms: “ectoine” and “nasal spray”, “ectoine” and “allergic rhinitis”, “ectoine” and “nasal irritation”, “ectoine” and “allergic rhinoconjunctivitis”, “ectoine” and “allergy”, “ectoine” and “hay fever”, “ectoine” and “nose”. The search was limited to clinical trials describing the application of ectoine nasal spray in allergic rhinitis, independent on the design of the study (including controlled, noncontrolled, interventional, and noninterventional studies). Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals or presented on scientific congresses were considered. Reference lists of the selected articles were assessed, and additional references fitting the subject of this review were included. Reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, case series, publications containing preclinical data, letters, editorials, errata, and reports of pooled data were excluded (Figure 1).

2.2. Search Results

Following the search strategy described above, a total of 14 relevant human studies performed between 2010 and 2019 investigating ectoine nasal spray (ENS) in treatment of allergic rhinitis were selected and further evaluated.

2.3. Study Design and Study Population

Except for one trial [43], all trials were real-life studies applying the ectoine product (s): a preservative-free nasal spray containing 2% ectoine, 0.9% sea salt, and water in the 3K System and, where applicable, preservative-free eye drops containing 2% ectoine, 0.35% hydroxyethyl cellulose, 0.35% sodium chloride, citrate buffer, and water, according to the instruction for use over a rather short period of time (1 week to 4 weeks, depending on trial) either as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions. All studies were performed with patients (adults and children) manifesting clinical symptoms characteristic of allergic rhinitis, which had been diagnosed by radioallergosorbent or skin prick test.

Patient-reported symptoms (diary) were used as a primary outcome parameter in all studies. These scoring differed greatly and ranged from combined visual analogue scales for all symptoms, to individual scales for up to 8 symptoms. Consequently, summary scores were calculated differently. Several trials applied additional methods, such as rhinocytogram, rhinoscopy, or eosinophil counting [44, 45].

In all selected studies, a saline-based nasal spray with 2% ectoine was applied. Comparator products are listed as follows:

Intranasal corticosteroids (INS) (mometasone, fluticasone, beclomethasone) [4648]

Oral or local antihistamine or local cromoglicate [49, 50]

Standard of care (guideline conform use of antihistamine and cromoglicate) [5153]

Intranasal isotonic salt solution [43, 54, 55]

Only 3 of the selected studies applied a randomization [43, 46, 50], whereas 3 did not carry out randomization due to local regulatory restrictions [47, 49]. Two studies were single-arm trials [44, 45], and the remaining studies did not present any information regarding randomization.

From the 14 studies, 2 have been single-armed [44, 45], and one triple-armed [46]. The 11 other studies were 2-armed. Of those 11 studies, 2 studies applied a crossover design [43, 49], and two studied 2 arms, but not comparative [48, 54]. The other 7 studies applied a comparative design including various comparators [47, 4953, 55].

A total of 681 subjects were studied in the 14 selected trials. Overall, out of the 462 patients applying ENS, 319 patients used ENS alone, and 171 in total used ENS combined with other pharmacotherapies. 315 patients used a study-specific comparator. Six clinical trials specifically studied the effect in children and adolescents (286/681), with the youngest child being 3 years old. All trials except one included both male and female patients (excluding pregnant women). Ryabova et al. carried out a study on pregnant women (45/681).

Three studies were conducted in Germany, one in Canada, one in Ukraine, one in Kazakhstan, and the remaining 8 in Russia.

Additional details are listed in Table 1.

3. Results from the Reviewed Clinical Trials

3.1. Safety of Ectoine Nasal Spray

All studies evaluated the safety of ENS, covering also the very sensitive patient groups of children and pregnant women. None of the studies reported a serious adverse effect. Among the very low rate of reported adverse effects which have been reported in total, no irreversible AE has been documented. All authors attribute an excellent safety profile towards the ENS (Table 1).

3.2. Efficacy and Effectiveness of Ectoine Nasal Spray

The 14 studies analyzed can be categorized into three main groups: (a)Application of ENS concomitantly with drugs compared to application of drugs alone [46, 5053](Table 2)(b)Application of ENS alone compared to other therapies or placebo [43, 47, 49, 55] (Table 3)(c)Application of ENS only without comparator [44, 45, 48, 54] (Table 4)


AuthorTreatment groupsPatient reported outcome (nasal symptom scores)Additional treatment effects observed (nonexhaustive)

Minaeva and Shiryaeva, 2015 [50]Group 1: In group 1, TNSS was reduced from , (day 1) to (day 21). In group 2, TNSS was reduced from (day 1) to (day 21), respectively. The difference between the groups was significant ()
Significant differences of single symptoms:
For nasal congestion on day 14 (), rhinorrhea on day 15 (), and nasal itching and sneezing on day 17 (), all favoring group 1.
Reduction of ocular itching was higher for group 1 on day 18 (). Conjunctival hyperemia was significantly more severe in group 1 at baseline and became comparable between the two groups on day 10 and significantly milder in group 1 on day 19 (). Additional symptomatic medication for rhinitis was used significantly less in group 1 (2 out of 30 patients), compared to group 2 (10 out of 20 patients) ().
Group 2: oral antihistamine
Abdulkerimov et al., 2016 [46]Group 1: ENSAll 3 treatments reduced nasal symptoms (sneezing, itchy nose, discharges, nasal congestion, unpleasant smell, cough, fatigue) significantly (), group 2 had the highest effect, followed by group 3, with group 1 having the lowest, but still a significant effect against baseline.Diminution of symptoms (in days) reflected the results from the symptom score: In group 2, symptoms diminished faster than in group 3, followed by group 1.
Group 2:
Group 3: INS
Kayb et al., 2016 [51]Group 1: In group 1, a positive dynamic of disease symptoms was observed in 92.3% () of mild cases after 2 weeks, and in 60% () in group 2. For the moderate form of AR, the efficacy of combined therapy in group 1 was 67% versus 50% in group 2 (). Based on patient questionnaires, the symptoms in mild AR were down by day 3 to day 5. In group 2, a positive dynamic in AR symptoms was observed by day 7.
After 4 weeks, in both groups, 100% of the mild AR patients were free of symptoms. No significant effect was observed in children with mild or severe AR in both groups.
In group 1, intranasal GCs could be stopped at week 4 of observation in 100% of cases with the mild form of AR and in 81.8% of cases with the moderate form of AR. In group 2, most children with the moderate form of AR (78.6%) continued to take intranasal GCs intermittently. In the severe form of AR in children in the group receiving ENS, the dose of intranasal GCs was able to be reduced, in contrast to group 2.
Group 2: Standard of care
Bardenikova et al., 2016 [52]Group 1: The reduction of AR symptoms was significant for both groups (): patients in group 1 had stronger changes, as their TNSS was reduced from to after 3 weeks of treatment versus to in group 2 (). Before enrolment, patients in group 2 had more severe AR symptoms ( points) when compared to group 1 (, ), mainly due to nasal congestion severity. An overall trend in the direction of a reduction in TNSS during the observation supports the efficacy of both groups ().In 62% of pediatric patients of group 2, the TNSS drop was more significant (2-3 points). A similar significant TNSS decrease (2-3 points) in group 1 was only demonstrated in 35% of patients.
Rhinoscopy showed improved results for both groups after treatment.
Analysis of the AR control index showed better values in patients in group 1.
Group 2:
Skosarev et al., 2015 [53]Group 1: Nasal breathing and mucous secretion were markedly reduced in group 1. Analysis of nasal itchiness, periodic sneezing, coughing, voice changes, and night snoring showed also definite positive trends (). As for group 2, positive trends but not statistically significant differences were shown for the occurrence of itchiness, periodic sneezing, coughing, voice changes, and night snoring.Interestingly, emotional profiles have been evaluated: analysis performed in the study demonstrated that the most important feature in the evaluation of emotional conditions was the anxiety level, which was found in percent in , , and of patients in group 1 for days 1, 5, and 10 of observation, accordingly. In group 2, the trend was less prominent: , , and cases, accordingly.
Group 2: Standard of care


AuthorStudy treatment distributionTreatment effect patient reported outcome (nasal symptom scores)Interesting treatment effect on other parameters (nonexhaustive)

Salapatek et al., 2011 [43]Group 1: ENS/EEDPatients in group 1 had a mean 1.54-fold lower TNSS during posttreatment EEC exposures than placebo patients, though the TNSS decreased not only in group 1 but also in group 2 when compared to baseline. The mean AUC TNSS score was at the EEC screening visit, which was significantly reduced to (-19.7%; ) in group 1 at the posttreatment EEC visits. In group 2, the drop was by 12.2% to . Intergroup comparison showed that the mean change from baseline AUC of TNSS for group 1 was 61.2% greater compared to group 2 (LSMD: -4.92 vs. -3.05). This difference showed clinically meaningful improvement in group 1 in comparison to group 2 but did only approach statistical significance ().
Treatment in group 1 resulted in significantly greater relief of the symptom “sneezing” ().
In both treatment groups, the TOSS and TNNSS after EEC exposure in comparison to baseline was reduced, but in group 1, we have seen an improvement in ARC symptoms: the mean change from baseline AUC of TNNSS was also significantly lower in group 1 compared to group 2. Mean cross-sectional areas of the nasal cavity were reduced to a lesser extent in group 1.
Group 2: placebo/placebo
Sonnemann et al., 2014 [47]Group 1: ENSAccording to the patients’ assessment, TNSS values decreased clearly in group 1 (, decrease by -12.86%) and a significant decrease was observed in group 2 (, decrease by 39.69%).
In order to study the time of onset of both treatments, TNSS development within the first 12 hours of treatment was analyzed. Both groups showed a significant decrease of TNSS from the first site visit until the first patient assessment at the end of the first day of treatment ( for both groups).
After 14 days of treatment, in the investigator’s assessment, both groups showed a significant reduction in TNSS levels.
Single symptom score and ear/palate itching analysis and QoL questionnaire revealed only significant changes for group 2 for sneezing and brushing the nose. In group 1, mean values of (mean values of entire study period) reflected moderate efficacy assessed by patients and a value of showed similar judgment by the physicians. In group 2, the efficacy was judged as good by patients () and as very good by investigators ().
Group 2: INS
Werkhäuser et al., 2014 [49]Group 1: ENS/EEDThe sum of nasal symptom scores showed a significant decrease from visit 1 to visit 2 (as assessed by physicians): sum scores in group 1 decreased from to () and sum scores in group 2 decreased from to (). According to the patients’ assessment, values decreased by 23.05% in group 1 () and by 33.14% in group 2 (). All single symptoms (nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal itching) decreased significantly in both groups.As for nasal symptoms, a clear decrease of the symptom palate itching was observed from visit 1 to visit 2: for group 1 and for group 2. Values of the patients’ documentation did only reach statistical significance in group 2 ().
The TOSS decreased significantly from visit 1 to visit 2 in both groups ( for group 1, for group 2).
Group 2: azelastine nasal spray and eye drops
Werkhäuser et al., 2014 [49]Group 1: ENSAccording to the physician’s assessment, TNSS scores decreased significantly for both groups both from visit 1 to visit 2 () and from visit 1 to visit 3 (). Scores assessed by patients showed that decreases in TNSS from day 1 to day 7 were not significant, whereas significant decreases in TNSS scores from day 1 to day 14 were shown for group 1 () as well as group 2 (). Single symptom scores also decreased significantly in both groups.The development of the sum of TOSS was assessed by the investigator. It could be confirmed that ocular symptoms decreased significantly from visit 1 to visit 2 ( for group 1; for group 2) as well as from visit 1 to visit 3 ( for group 1; for group 2).
Group 2: cromoglicate nasal spray
Kryuchko et al., 2014 [55]Group 1: At the end of the treatment course, overall improvement was achieved for both groups but was more prominent in group 1 (improvement of the TNSS by 4.6 vs. 4.2; ).Applying the RQLQ, 81.5% of patients in group 1 scored the treatment results as “good,” 15.8% scored the treatment results as “fair,” and only 2.7% continued to use topical antihistamine products due to polyvalent sensitization and the persistent course of allergic rhinitis. In group 2, a “good” score was achieved for 58% of patients, “fair” score was achieved for 25%, and 17% of pediatric patients had to continue intranasal therapy due to persistent symptoms.
Group 2: saline solution


AuthorStudy treatment distributionTreatment effect patient reported outcome (nasal symptom scores)Additional other treatment effect (nonexhaustive)

Ryabova et al., 2019 [54]Group 1: ENS (persistent allergic rhinitis)After 10 days of treatment, both groups showed a significant reduction in complaints: the total clinical score developed from points to points in group 1 and from points to points in group 2.The ENT examination showed a decrease in the severity of inflammatory events in the nasal cavity ().
Cytological evaluation of nasal secretion in both groups revealed an increase in the relative count of eosinophils and the absolute count of leukocytes. This was mainly due to an increase in neutrophils.
A significant decrease in the amount of secretory IgE was observed in group 1 and group 2 ().
Group 2: ENS (intermittent allergic rhinitis)
Kamaev et al., 2015 [48]Group 1: ENS plus antihistamines and/or cromoglicateA decrease in the severity of AR symptoms on the TNSS scale in both groups ( points in group 1 and points in group 2) was observed.As a result of combination therapy in both groups, a marked decrease in both clinical and laboratory activities of inflammation was achieved between visits 1 and 3: a decrease in eosinophil count ( in group 1 and in group 2); a decrease in the overall assessment score of the rhinocytogram ( in group 1 and in group 2); a decrease in the score of AR exacerbations according to the anterior rhinoscopy data ( in group 1 and in group 2).
Group 2:
Mokronosova et al.,2017 [45]Group 1: ENSMost of the patients (20/34) benefited from treatment with ENS. In 6 out of 34 participants, the disease worsened and 8 patients expressed no difference. Thus, there were 2.6 and 3.3 times more patients in whom use of ENS spray led to decreases in symptoms.
Mokronosova et al., 2019 [44]Group 1: ENSAll patients except one showed a decrease in the intensity of all clinical symptoms of AR.After a week of use of ENS, the range of eosinophils in the rhinocytogram has not changed. However, the average number of eosinophils tended to decrease from to

4. Discussion

4.1. Study Design

In this systematic review, several studies reporting on the effect of ectoine nasal spray in allergic rhinitis were analyzed. Although many of the studies were not published internationally (especially the Russian/Ukrainian studies), the studies were comparable regarding the studied indication (allergic rhinitis) and the primary outcome parameter (patient-reported symptoms). However, they differed in terms of efficacy readout, study population (children, adults, pregnant women), study duration (1 to 8 weeks), and also design (comparative studies, add-on studies, noncomparative studies, studies with parallel treatments of the eyes and nose). Only one trial was placebo controlled, and the overall number of patients per trial with medium 48 patients was rather small. Furthermore, many study details were missing, e.g., information whether the trial was blinded or randomized (e.g., Kayb et al. [51]), or only limited information was given regarding the presence of adverse effects in most trials. A CONSORT description was also missing in 9 of 14 studies, which is in line with the fact that most of the studies were not randomized clinical trials. These limitations influence the quality of the studies, resulting in an average Jadad score of 1-2 points (see Table 1).

The differences in study designs impede to cluster and meta-analyze the data. Nevertheless, the 14 selected trials show a clear picture on the potential efficacy/effectiveness and safety of ectoine nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

4.2. Monotherapy with Ectoine

Results from real-life studies constitute an important element of evidence-based medicine since they reflect the effectiveness of the treatment with all the confounding factors as per routine medical practice. Eichel et al. [40] conducted a meta-analysis of four clinical trials comparing ectoine to azelastine [49], cromoglicic acid [49], beclomethasone [47], and placebo. These studies were also included in the review presented here. Results from the meta-analysis by Eichel and colleagues show that, after seven days of treatment with ectoine nasal spray, both nasal and ocular symptoms were significantly alleviated and an especially marked improvement was observed in the symptom of nasal obstruction. The authors concluded that the effectiveness of ectoine was noninferior to that of standard “over the counter” treatment regimens. These results are in line with those from the other studies reviewed here. Salapatek et al. [43] proved in their placebo-controlled trial that hallmark symptoms of AR can be significantly improved by monotherapy with ENS.

Results of the study conducted by Abdulkerimov et al. [46] demonstrated that treatment with ENS alone improved nasal symptoms significantly, but it was less effective than treatment with INS alone. Likewise, results from the study conducted by Sonnemann et al. [47] confirmed that ENS is less effective than beclomethasone nasal spray. Given that INS are the most efficacious pharmacological treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis [30], it is not surprising that the effectiveness of ENS alone, which still showed an impressive >50% symptom improvement, does not match up to that of INS.

Mokronosova et al. showed in 2 studies that treatment for 14 days with ENS resulted in successful treatment of 58.8% and >90% of patients, respectively [44, 45]. According to Abdulkerimov et al. [46], significant nasal symptom relief was evident within 18 to 21 days in moderate-to-severe rhinitis patients who underwent treatment with ENS. According to Sonnemann et al., ENS reduced the nasal symptoms of mild-moderate patients already significantly within the first day of treatment [47]. Furthermore, it has been shown in other trials that patients with severe rhinitis symptoms are difficult to treat. Even with the most effective intranasal formulation, combined azelastine and fluticasone furoate, patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis showed a relatively low responder rate of 12.4% [56] or 16.7% [57] after 14 days of treatment. In general, only 30.3% of grass pollen-allergic patients and 54.3% of those suffering from birch pollen allergy attain symptom control with guideline-concordant pharmacotherapy [58]. All studies investigating a monotherapy with ectoine invariably attested positive effects of ectoine monotherapy in alleviating symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Taking the baseline symptom scores into consideration, these results permit the conclusion that patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms could be successfully treated with ectoine alone; however, monotherapy with ectoine should not be considered in patients with severe symptoms. In head-to-head comparison studies, ectoine was proven superior to isotonic (sea) salt solutions [43], equivalent to antihistamines (azelastine) and cromoglicic acid [49] but less effective than INS (beclomethasone, mometasone, fluticasone) [46, 47].

4.3. Combination Therapy with Ectoine

In accordance with various guidelines, combination therapy is commonly used to treat allergic rhinitis. A large-scale, real-world survey on the prescribing behavior of UK physicians showed that 20-40% of patients who used monotherapy with antihistamines at the beginning of the pollen season and 25-50% of those who used INS used add-on therapy during the pollen season [36]. In patient-based surveys, the percentage of patients who used both, prescription and nonprescription products, was higher (53.0-70.4%), because patients commonly purchase symptomatic medication for allergic rhinitis over the counter in addition to the prescribed drugs [5961]. These figures warrant the search for an effective treatment combination for patients who suffer from rhinitis symptoms despite the use of first-line therapy.

Evidence supports the use of combination therapy in allergic rhinitis, specifically combinations of pharmacological drugs. The combination of oxymetazoline and mometasone furoate nasal spray showed greater reductions in allergic rhinitis symptoms than mometasone furoate nasal spray alone [62]. Likewise, the combination of oxymetazoline and fluticasone furoate was also superior to both monotherapies [63]. Greiwe and Bernstein [64] conducted a systemic review of combination pharmacotherapy for rhinitis: they concluded that two combinations—intranasal antihistamine (azelastine) with INS and INS with nasal decongestants—are advantageous for patients with complex rhinitis symptoms in terms of symptom control and a preponderance of benefit over harm. The ARIA guidelines 2016 revision recommends the combination of intranasal/oral antihistamines and INS for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis; the combination of INS and intranasal antihistamines acts faster than INCS alone and thus might be preferred by patients [31].

We reviewed five studies investigating ENS (nonpharmacotherapy) as add-on to pharmacotherapy (antihistamine, cromoglicate, and/or INS), in which monotherapy using either ectoine or pharmacotherapy was used as a comparator. Regardless of treatment regimens, combination therapy with ENS consistently elicited not only greater but also faster symptom relief than did antihistamine alone and INS alone [46, 50, 51]. In the study by Minaeva and Shiryaeva [50], treatment with oral antihistamine alone showed only modest effects in children and adolescents with mild-to-moderate symptoms of allergic rhinitis, whereas those applying ENS additionally were mostly “cured” after treatment end. According to Abdulkerimov et al. [46] and Bardenikova et al. [52], ENS improved the effectiveness of INS. The study of Abdulkerimov et al. was of particular interest to us as the combination of ectoine and INS showed the best treatment effect in difficult-to-treat patients with moderate-to-severe rhinitis symptoms. This trend was also observed for the most effective intranasal formulation (azelastine and fluticasone furoate) in patients with moderate-to-severe rhinitis who exhibited complete or near-complete symptom relief faster than those receiving either fluticasone furoate or azelastine alone [46].

Compared to the combinations of antihistamines with INS or nasal decongestants with INS, the advantages of the combination with ENS lie in its excellent tolerability and safety profile, given that most pharmacological drugs are associated with considerable local irritations and side effects [65, 66]. For instance, it is well known that oxymetazoline might trigger rhinitis medicamentosa, and intranasal steroids might cause stunted growth in children [65, 67]. The combination of fluticasone furoate and azelastine is not indicated for patients under 12 years old because of lack of corresponding data, but the combination of ectoine and antihistamine is suitable for children, as shown by different studies [5053].

Taken together, the increased effectiveness and time advantage observed in the combination therapy with ectoine were consistent across all studies described above. Thus, ectoine can be deemed a safe and effective add-on to guideline-concordant therapy with antihistamines, cromoglicic acid, or INS.

4.4. Concomitant Use of Ectoine Eye Drops

In two of the selected studies [43, 49], ectoine-containing eye drops were applied together with the ENS in order to treat ocular symptoms (allergic rhinoconjunctivitis). Results showed significant and clinically relevant improvement of allergic ocular symptoms such as watery eyes and itching. Although this review concentrates on allergic rhinitis and ectoine nasal spray, it is worth to mention that these results are in line with other studies showing positive effects of ectoine-based eye drops for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis [6871].

4.5. Treatment of Sensitive Patient Groups

A total of seven studies examined the effects of ectoine nasal spray in the very sensitive patient groups of children and adolescents (6 studies, [48, 5053, 55]) and pregnant women (1 trial, [54]). The results show that ENS shows efficacy/effectiveness in these sensitive patient groups and combines this with its excellent safety profile of a nonpharmacological treatment.

5. Conclusions

In this review, we provide evidence based on the review of 14 independent studies from 4 countries that patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms of allergic rhinitis can be successfully treated with ectoine-containing nasal spray. ENS alone exerts noninferior effects compared to first-line therapy such as antihistamines and cromoglicic acid. Using ENS as an add-on therapy to antihistamines or INS accelerated symptom relief by up to 7 days. This combination strategy was proven to be beneficial in a group of difficult-to-treat patients suffering from moderate-to-severe rhinitis symptoms.

This review of 14 studies extends our knowledge about the substance ectoine and their potential applicability in the treatment of allergic rhinitis by providing mainly patient-reported outcomes in real-world settings under different regional settings with different allergen exposure, standard of care, and different patient groups including very sensitive patient groups. Especially, the combination of different treatment approaches like ectoine treatment in combination with other medications (such as antihistamines or INS) showed additional potential for increased efficacy in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Although the studies have their limitations in design, patient number, and reporting, the following final conclusion can be made: ectoine is a natural substance with an excellent tolerability and safety profile and thus is maybe a viable alternative for allergic rhinitis patients who wish to avoid local reactions and side effects associated with pharmacological therapy. Larger scale controlled and randomized studies would be desirable to further verify the obtained results.

Abbreviations

ACT:Asthma control test
AE:Adverse event
AR:Allergic rhinitis
ASIT:Allergen specific immunotherapy
ARIA:Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma
AUC:Area under the curve
EEC:Environmental exposure chamber
EED:Ectoine eye drops
ENS:Ectoine nasal spray
ENT:Ear-nose-throat
GC:Glucocorticoid
INS:Intranasal glucocorticosteroids
LSMD:Least square mean difference
QoL:Quality of life
RQLQ:Rhinitis quality of life questionnaire
SAE:Serious adverse event
TNSS:Total nasal symptom score
TNNSS:Total nonnasal symptom score
TOSS:Total ocular symptom score.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval is not applicable.

Consent is not applicable.

Disclosure

All authors had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

AB reports personal fees from bitop AG. NW is an employee of bitop AG. RM reports personal fees from ALK, grants from ASIT biotech, personal fees from Allergopharma, personal fees from Allergy Therapeutics, grants and personal fees from Bencard, grants from Leti, grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Lofarma, nonfinancial support from Roxall, grants and personal fees from Stallergenes, grants from Optima, personal fees from Friulchem, personal fees from Hexal, personal fees from Servier, personal fees from Klosterfrau, nonfinancial support from Atmos, personal fees from Bayer, nonfinancial support from Bionorica, personal fees from FAES, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, personal fees from Meda, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Novartis, nonfinancial support from Otonomy, personal fees from Stada, personal fees from UCB, nonfinancial support from Ferrero, grants from bitop AG, grants from Hulka, personal fees from Nuvo, and grants from Ursapharm, outside the submitted work.

Authors’ Contributions

AB performed the review, evaluated the data, and wrote the manuscript together with NW and RM. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript before submission.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Anja Heinrich (bitop AG) for her valuable comments on the manuscript as well as Dr. Esther Raskopf (ClinCompetence Cologne GmbH) for her editorial assistance. Sponsorship for the article processing charges were funded by bitop AG.

References

  1. A. Bownik and Z. Stepniewska, “Ectoine as a promising protective agent in humans and animals,” Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 260–265, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. G. Lentzen and T. Schwarz, “Extremolytes: natural compounds from extremophiles for versatile applications,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 623–634, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. G. Zaccai, I. Bagyan, J. Combet et al., “Neutrons describe ectoine effects on water H-bonding and hydration around a soluble protein and a cell membrane,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, article 31434, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. E. A. Galinski, M. Stein, B. Amendt, and M. Kinder, “The kosmotropic (structure-forming) effect of compensatory solutes,” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 357–365, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. T. Arakawa and S. N. Timasheff, “The stabilization of proteins by osmolytes,” Biophysical Journal, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 411–414, 1985. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. M. B. Hahn, T. Solomun, R. Wellhausen et al., “Influence of the compatible solute ectoine on the local water structure: implications for the binding of the protein G5P to DNA,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 119, no. 49, pp. 15212–15220, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. J. Smiatek, R. K. Harishchandra, O. Rubner, H. J. Galla, and A. Heuer, “Properties of compatible solutes in aqueous solution,” Biophysical Chemistry, vol. 160, no. 1, pp. 62–68, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. A. Roychoudhury, D. Haussinger, and F. Oesterhelt, “Effect of the compatible solute ectoine on the stability of the membrane proteins,” Protein and Peptide Letters, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 791–794, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. R. K. Harishchandra, S. Wulff, G. Lentzen, T. Neuhaus, and H. J. Galla, “The effect of compatible solute ectoines on the structural organization of lipid monolayer and bilayer membranes,” Biophysical Chemistry, vol. 150, no. 1-3, pp. 37–46, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. L. Czech, L. Hermann, N. Stöveken et al., “Role of the extremolytes ectoine and hydroxyectoine as stress protectants and nutrients: genetics, phylogenomics, biochemistry, and structural analysis,” Genes, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 177, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. M. Kroker, U. Sydlik, A. Autengruber et al., “Preventing carbon nanoparticle-induced lung inflammation reduces antigen-specific sensitization and subsequent allergic reactions in a mouse model,” Particle and Fibre Toxicology, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 20, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. H. Peuschel, U. Sydlik, S. Grether-Beck et al., “Carbon nanoparticles induce ceramide- and lipid raft-dependent signalling in lung epithelial cells: a target for a preventive strategy against environmentally-induced lung inflammation,” Particle and Fibre Toxicology, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 48, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. H. Peuschel, U. Sydlik, J. Haendeler et al., “c-Src-mediated activation of Erk 1/2 is a reaction of epithelial cells to carbon nanoparticle treatment and may be a target for a molecular preventive strategy,” Biological Chemistry, vol. 391, no. 11, pp. 1327–1332, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. U. Sydlik, I. Gallitz, C. Albrecht, J. Abel, J. Krutmann, and K. Unfried, “The compatible solute ectoine protects against nanoparticle-induced neutrophilic lung inflammation,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 180, no. 1, pp. 29–35, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. K. Unfried, M. Kroker, A. Autengruber, M. Gotic, and U. Sydlik, “The compatible solute ectoine reduces the exacerbating effect of environmental model particles on the immune response of the airways,” Journal of Allergy, vol. 2014, Article ID 708458, 7 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. U. Sydlik, H. Peuschel, A. Paunel-Görgülü et al., “Recovery of neutrophil apoptosis by ectoine: a new strategy against lung inflammation,” The European Respiratory Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 433–442, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. H. Abdel-Aziz, W. Wadie, D. M. Abdallah, G. Lentzen, and M. T. Khayyal, “Novel effects of ectoine, a bacteria-derived natural tetrahydropyrimidine, in experimental colitis,” Phytomedicine, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 585–591, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. A. Marini, K. Reinelt, J. Krutmann, and A. Bilstein, “Ectoine-containing cream in the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis: a randomised, comparator-controlled, intra-individual double-blind, multi-center trial,” Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 57–65, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. D. Müller, T. Lindemann, K. Shah-Hosseini et al., “Efficacy and tolerability of an ectoine mouth and throat spray compared with those of saline lozenges in the treatment of acute pharyngitis and/or laryngitis: a prospective, controlled, observational clinical trial,” European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 273, no. 9, pp. 2591–2597, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. V.-A. Dao, S. Overhagen, A. Bilstein, C. Kolot, U. Sonnemann, and R. Mösges, “Ectoine lozenges in the treatment of acute viral pharyngitis: a prospective, active-controlled clinical study,” European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 276, no. 3, pp. 775–783, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. B. H. Tran, V. A. Dao, A. Bilstein, K. Unfried, K. Shah-Hosseini, and R. Mosges, “Ectoine-containing inhalation solution versus saline inhalation solution in the treatment of acute bronchitis and acute respiratory infections: a prospective, controlled, observational study,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2019, Article ID 7945091, 8 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. M. Casale, A. Moffa, S. Carbone et al., “Topical Ectoine: a promising molecule in the upper airways inflammation—a systematic review,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2019, 10 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. U. Sonnemann, O. Scherner, and N. Werkhäuser, “Treatment of rhinitis sicca anterior with ectoine containing nasal spray,” Journal of Allergy, vol. 2014, Article ID 273219, 10 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. V. A. Dao, A. Bilstein, S. Overhagen, L. Géczi, Z. Baráth, and R. Mösges, “Effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of ectoine-containing mouthwash versus those of a calcium phosphate mouthwash for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: a prospective, active-controlled, non-interventional study,” Oncology and Therapy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 59–72, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. K. Unfried, U. Krämer, U. Sydlik et al., “Reduction of neutrophilic lung inflammation by inhalation of the compatible solute ectoine: a randomized trial with elderly individuals,” International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, vol. 11, pp. 2573–2583, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. A. Moffa, S. Carbone, A. Costantino et al., “Potential role of topical ectoine for prevention of pediatric upper respiratory tract infection: a preliminary observational study,” Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1935–1940, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. P. Allegri, G. Marrazzo, C. Ciurlo, A. Mastromarino, S. Autuori, and U. Murialdo, Eds., Retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy on vernal kerat-conjunctivis (VKC) of 2% ectoine versus 0, 05% ketofinen eye drops, ARVO, 2014.
  28. R. Pawankar, G. W. Canonica, S. T. Holgate, R. F. Lockey, M. S. Blaiss, and WAO, White Book on Allergy: Update 2013 Executive Summary, 2013.
  29. T. Zuberbier, J. Lotvall, S. Simoens, S. V. Subramanian, and M. K. Church, “Economic burden of inadequate management of allergic diseases in the European Union: a GA (2) LEN review,” Allergy, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 1275–1279, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. J. Bousquet, N. Khaltaev, A. A. Cruz et al., “Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2008,” Allergy, vol. 63, Supplement 86, pp. 8–160, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. J. L. Brożek, J. Bousquet, I. Agache et al., “Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) guidelines-2016 revision,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 140, no. 4, pp. 950–958, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. P. Demoly, E. Serrano, A. Didier, J. Klossek, P. Bousquet, and K. Mesbah, “Listening to and understanding patients with allergic rhinitis,” Allergy, vol. 65, pp. 729-730, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  33. J. Derebery, E. Meltzer, R. A. Nathan et al., “Rhinitis symptoms and comorbidities in the United States: burden of rhinitis in America survey,” Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 139, no. 2, pp. 198–205, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. M. Belhassen, P. Demoly, E. Bloch-Morot et al., “Costs of perennial allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma increase with severity and poor disease control,” Allergy, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 948–958, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. J. Bousquet, C. Bachert, G. W. Canonica et al., “Unmet needs in severe chronic upper airway disease (SCUAD),” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 428–433, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. D. B. Price, G. Scadding, C. Bachert et al., “UK prescribing practices as proxy markers of unmet need in allergic rhinitis: a retrospective observational study,” NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, vol. 26, no. 1, article 16033, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. B. F. Marple, J. A. Fornadley, A. A. Patel et al., “Keys to successful management of patients with allergic rhinitis: focus on patient confidence, compliance, and satisfaction,” Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 136, 6 Supplement, pp. S107–SS24, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. O. Kaschke, B. Tischer, and M. Maurer, Eds., Auswirkungen einer Steroidphobie in Deutschland auf die Therapie der allergischen Rhinitis mit topischen Glukokortikoiden 79 Jahresversammlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie e V, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie e. V, Bonn, Germany, 2008.
  39. E. Valovirta and D. Ryan, “Patient adherence to allergic rhinitis treatment: results from patient surveys,” The Medscape Journal of Medicine, vol. 10, no. 10, p. 247, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  40. A. Eichel, N. Werkhäuser, A. Bilstein, and R. Moesges, “Meta-analysis of the efficacy of ectoine nasal spray and eye drops in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis,” Allergy, vol. 2014, article 292545, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  41. D. Moher, D. G. Altman, A. Liberati, and J. Tetzlaff, “PRISMA statement,” Epidemiology, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 128, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. A. R. Jadad, R. A. Moore, D. Carroll et al., “Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?” Controlled Clinical Trials, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. A. Salapatek, M. Bates, A. Bilstein, and D. Patel, “Ectoin®, a novel, non-drug, extremophile-based device, relieves allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms in patients in an environmental exposure chamber model,” vol. 127, no. 2, Article ID AB202, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. M. A. Mokronosova, “Effectiveness of the product Aqua Maris Ektoin in patients with allergic rhinitis and sensitization to polenal allergens,” Immunology, vol. 40, pp. 38–42, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  45. M. A. Mokronosova, T. M. Zheltikova, A. S. Aref'eva, and G. D. Tarasova, “Therapeutic effects of Aqua Maris Ectoin in patients with intermittent allergic rhinitis,” Russian Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 2, no. 87, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  46. K. T. Abdulkerimov, K. I. Kartashova, R. S. Davydov, Z. H. Abdulkerimov, A. V. Kolesnikova, and D. R. Yusupova, “The use of ectoine nasal spray in combination therarpy of allergic rhinitis, the possibilities of barrier monotherapy,” School of Pharmacology and Innovative Technology., vol. 2, no. 81, pp. 127–133, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  47. U. Sonnemann, M. Möller, and A. Bilstein, “Noninterventional open-label trial investigating the efficacy and safety of ectoine containing nasal spray in comparison with beclomethasone nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis,” Journal of Allergy, vol. 2014, Article ID 297203, 12 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. A. V. T. Kamaev, “Clinical efficacy of ectoin (ANS01) in the form of nasal spray (drug aquamaris sense) in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis in children and adolsescents,” Russian Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 4, no. 77, pp. 131–143, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  49. N. Werkhäuser, A. Bilstein, and U. Sonnemann, “Treatment of allergic rhinitis with ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops in comparison with azelastine containing nasal spray and eye drops or with cromoglycic acid containing nasal spray,” Journal of Allergy, vol. 2014, Article ID 176597, 13 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. N. V. Minaeva and D. M. Shiryaeva, “Comparative evaluation of the efficacy in treating children with seasonal allergic rhinitis using antihistamine Combined with Ectoine nasal spray and antihistamine monotherapy: results of an Open Randomized study,” Current Pediatrics, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 483, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. I. D. Kayb, E. Y. Mayer, V. V. Kramarenko, and O. V. Pavlova, “Clinical efficacy of Aqua Maris® Sens in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis,” Pediatria, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 101–104, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  52. S. I. Bardenikova, O. V. Zaytseva, S. Y. Snitko, M. A. Polyakova, and O. B. Dovgun, “Efficacy of barrier therapy with nasal spray Aqua Maris® Sens in children with perennial allergic rhinitis,” Pediatria, vol. 95, no. 2, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  53. L. A. Skosarev, A. S. Akhayeva, T. A. Kenzhetayeva, and D. E. Zhupenova, “Peculiarities of elimination teatment in children with allergic rhinitis,” Medicine, vol. 4, pp. 87–91, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  54. L. V. RMAG, “Evaluation of efficiency and safety of application Aqua Maris® Ectoin (ANS01) nasal spray in the therapy of allergic rhinitis in pregnant women,” Folia Otorhinolaryngologiae et Pathologiae Respiratoriae, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 94–103, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  55. T. A. Kryuchko, O. Y. Tkachenko, Y. A. Vovk, and A. V. Lukanin, “An allergic rhinitis treatment: the way from an evidence to practical medicine,” Contemporary Pediatrics, vol. 5, no. 61, pp. 83–87, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  56. W. Carr, J. Bernstein, P. Lieberman et al., “A novel intranasal therapy of azelastine with fluticasone for the treatment of allergic rhinitis,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 1282–1289.e10, 2012, e10. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. E. Meltzer, P. Ratner, C. Bachert et al., “Clinically relevant effect of a new intranasal therapy (MP29-02) in allergic rhinitis assessed by responder analysis,” International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, vol. 161, no. 4, pp. 369–377, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. J.-P. Liedtke, A. Mandl, J. Köther et al., “RCAT reflects symptom control and quality of life in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis patients,” Tech. Rep. 5, Allergy, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. B. L. Kuehl, S. Abdulnour, M. O'Dell, and T. K. Kyle, “Understanding the role of the healthcare professional in patient self-management of allergic rhinitis,” SAGE Open Medicine, vol. 3, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. P. W. Hellings, W. J. Fokkens, C. Akdis et al., “Uncontrolled allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis: where do we stand today?” Allergy, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. R. Pitman, N. Paracha, C. Parker et al., “Episode pattern and healthcare utilisation in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis,” Allergy, vol. 67, 96, pp. 342–342, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  62. E. O. Meltzer, D. I. Bernstein, B. M. Prenner, W. E. Berger, T. Shekar, and A. A. Teper, “Mometasone furoate nasal spray plus oxymetazoline nasal spray: short-term efficacy and safety in seasonal allergic rhinitis,” American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 102–108, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. F. M. Baroody, D. Brown, L. Gavanescu, M. DeTineo, and R. M. Naclerio, “Oxymetazoline adds to the effectiveness of fluticasone furoate in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 927–934, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. J. C. Greiwe and J. A. Bernstein, “Combination therapy in allergic rhinitis: what works and what does not work,” American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 391–396, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. J. McDonnell, K. Weller, and L. C. Pien, “Safety of intranasal steroids: an updated perspective,” Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, vol. 20, no. 11, p. 69, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. W. Berger, E. Sher, S. Gawchik, and S. Fineman, “Safety of a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in children: a randomized clinical trial,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 110–116, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. S. Pedersen, “Assessing the effect of intranasal steroids on growth,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. S40–S44, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. R. Skrypnyk and G. Seidametova, “Optimization of treatment of seasonal conjunctivitis,” Ophthalmology Eastern Europe, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 215–221, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  69. G. I. Drozhzhyna and L. F. Troychenko, New eye drops - "Eye-t Ectoin Pro" for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis, World of Ophthalmology, 2015.
  70. E. Mrukwa-Kominek, W. Lubon, J. Janiszewska-Salamon, A. Urgacz-Lechowicz, and R. Jinasz, “Analysis of the efficacy and safety of ectoine eye drops in patients with allergic conjunctivitis,” ESCRS meeting, 2017, https://www.escrs.org/Maastricht2017/Programme/posters-details.asp?id=27683. View at: Google Scholar
  71. A. Bilstein, A. Heinrich, A. Rybachuk, and R. Mösges, “Ectoine in the treatment of irritations and inflammations of the eye surface,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2021, Article ID 8885032, 16 pages, 2021. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2021 Andreas Bilstein et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views572
Downloads911
Citations

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2021, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.