Effect of the Use of Intranasal Spray of Essential Oils in Patients with Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Among allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms, nasal obstruction particularly affects the quality of life. Antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the most frequently prescribed symptomatic drugs, but their efficacy is often incomplete. Essential oils (EO) have shown an anti-inflammatory effect and potential in treating patients with AR. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a hypertonic EO-based nasal spray on perennial AR (PAR) symptoms. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, non-randomized, multicentric trial included 43 patients with PAR sensitized to mites, not controlled for more than a year. All were treated with Puressentiel® Respiratory-Decongestant Nasal Spray for 30 days. Their usual treatment remained unchanged during the study period. Before and after treatment, each participant filled out a rhinitis questionnaire, the Allergic Rhinitis Control Test (ARCT). A nasal inspiratory peak flow (NIPF) was performed. RESULTS: The mean ARCT was 16.4 and 20.5 at D0 and D30, respectively (p < 0.001); the mean increase between D0 and D30 was 4.1 (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with controlled rhinitis after 30 days of treatment was 69.8 versus 14% before treatment (p < 0.001). The mean NIPF was 86.5 L/min and 105.1 L/min at D0 and D30, respectively (p < 0.001); the mean increase between D0 and D30 was 18.5 L/min. CONCLUSION: A hypertonic EO-based nasal spray could be a new and natural option in the management of PAR. It could also be used as an add-on therapy when nasal symptoms are not fully controlled.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".