Longitudinal Changes in Nasal Airflow and Patient‐Reported Outcomes Following Acoustic Nasal Therapy: A Pilot Study

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Acoustic nasal therapy has emerged as a potential non‐pharmacological adjunct for allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), but longitudinal evidence on its effects on nasal airflow and patient‐reported outcomes remains limited. This early‐phase study evaluated changes in objective nasal airflow and symptom burden following a 4‐week acoustic nasal therapy intervention and a follow‐up period after treatment withdrawal. Methods A prospective single‐arm quasi‐experimental longitudinal pilot study was conducted in 30 adults with clinician‐diagnosed or symptom‐consistent AR and/or CRS. Participants used a bilateral intranasal acoustic device for 10 min twice daily for 4 weeks. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, post‐treatment, and follow‐up after discontinuation. The primary longitudinal outcomes were peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test‐22 (SNOT‐22) scores. Secondary variables of subgroup, adherence, correlation, responder, and multivariable analyzes were also explored. Results PNIF showed no significant change immediately post‐intervention (−2.0 L/min, p = 0.67) but increased between post‐treatment and follow‐up (+12.2 L/min, p = 0.036); change from baseline to follow‐up was not significant (+ 10.1 L/min, p = 0.069 after Holm adjustment). Symptom burden improved significantly during treatment (−15.43 points, p < 0.0001) but partially attenuated after discontinuation (+11.97 points, p = 0.0003), with no significant difference between baseline and follow‐up (−3.47 points, p = 0.242). At post‐treatment, 66.7% achieved the minimum clinically important difference, decreasing to 33.3% at follow‐up. Objective airflow changes did not consistently align with symptom improvement. Conclusion This study provides early longitudinal evidence on acoustic nasal therapy in adults classified as having AR and/or CRS. Patient‐reported symptoms improved during active treatment and attenuated after withdrawal, while changes in objective nasal airflow were less consistent. These hypothesis‐generating findings support controlled studies to clarify efficacy, optimal dosing, and durability of response.