Objective:The primary objective was to assess the warming sensation caused by flavor 316282 in a cold and cough product in the target population.Methods:A single-cohort, single-treatment arm, open-label study. Subjects received one 30-mL dose of syrup containing flavor 316282, paracetamol, phenylephrine hydrochloride, and guaifenesin and recorded onset and disappearance of any warming sensation in the mouth/throat. Subjects’ assessment of strength and appeal of the sensation, taste, texture, and acceptability of the product as a cold and cough remedy was investigated using questionnaires.Results:A total of 51 subjects were included; 47 (92.1%) experienced a warming sensation. The median duration of the warming sensation was 100 s (95% confidence interval = 82 s, 112 s). The majority of subjects rated the syrup as excellent, good, or fair for treatment of cough and cold symptoms (96.1%), taste (80.4%), and texture (98.0%). There were no safety concerns, and the syrup was well tolerated. Most subjects liked the warming sensation.Conclusions:Flavor 316282 in a cold and cough syrup is associated with a warming sensation. The syrup is well tolerated, safe, and palatable.

Objective:The primary objective was to assess the warming sensation caused by IFF Flavour 316282 in a syrup used for short-term treatment by patients suffering from nasal congestion and mild to moderate body pain, headache, fever or sore throat associated with an upper respiratory tract infection.Methods:A single cohort, single treatment arm, open-label study. Subjects received one 30 mL dose of syrup containing IFF Flavour 316282, paracetamol and pseudoephedrine and recorded onset and disappearance of any warming sensation in the mouth/throat. Subjects’ assessments of strength and appeal of the sensation, taste, texture and acceptability of the product was investigated using questionnaires.Results:A total of 56 subjects were included; 53 (94.6%) experienced a warming sensation. The median duration of the warming sensation was 114 s (95% confidence interval: 87–120 s). All subjects rated the syrup as excellent, good or fair for treating their symptoms; 100% and 94.6% of subjects respectively described texture and taste as excellent, good or fair. There were no safety concerns, and the syrup was well tolerated. Most subjects liked the warming sensation.Conclusions:IFF Flavour 316282 in a syrup for treatment of upper respiratory tract infection symptoms is associated with a warming sensation. The syrup is well tolerated, safe and palatable.

BackgroundLozenges containing lidocaine and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) are commonly used for the treatment of sore throat. The lidocaine acts locally to provide pain relief and the CPC has an antiseptic effect. Mebucaine CL, a well-established fixed-combination sore throat lozenge, contains 1 mg lidocaine and 2 mg CPC. Single-agent lozenges containing 8 mg lidocaine have also been demonstrated to be significantly superior to placebo in confirmatory pain intensity assessments. This study compared a new lozenge formulation, containing 8 mg lidocaine and 2 mg CPC, with the currently marketed lozenge for the treatment and relief of sore throat symptoms in subjects diagnosed with a sore throat due to an upper respiratory tract infection (URTI).MethodsIn this double-blind parallel-group study, 250 adults with a sore throat due to an URTI were randomized to receive a single lozenge containing either 8 mg lidocaine + 2 mg CPC (n = 125) or 1 mg lidocaine + 2 mg CPC (n = 125). The primary efficacy endpoint of the study was the change in sore throat pain intensity (STPI) between baseline (immediately pre-treatment) and the 2-h post-dose assessment, measured on a 100 mm visual analog scale. STPI was measured at baseline and regular intervals up to 240 min after the lozenge was administered (evaluated in clinic). Any difficulty in swallowing and time to onset and duration of the analgesic effect were also assessed.ResultsNo increase in efficacy was demonstrated with the higher dose of lidocaine. The difference in the 2-h post-dose change in STPI was not statistically significant between the treatments. There was only one statistically significant difference between the treatments in all of the efficacy outcomes assessed: pain relief scores at 4 h post-dose were higher with 1 mg lidocaine + 2 mg CPC than with 8 mg lidocaine + 2 mg CPC (P = 0.0461). The most commonly reported adverse event (AE) was a headache; the only other AE experienced by more than one subject was throat irritation. No severe adverse events were reported during the assessment period.ConclusionsThe modest difference in the pattern of effectiveness between the two treatments observed in this study does not support use of the 8 mg lidocaine + 2 mg CPC lozenge.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01265446. Registered on 20 December 2010.