Intranasal steroids for acute sinusitis

Safety of a New Sinus Irrigation Device in Rhinosinusitis: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Puncture and lavage of the paranasal sinuses, previously the primary treatment for unresponsive acute bacterial rhinosinusitis before surgery, has been abandoned due to procedural discomfort and advancements in antibiotic efficacy and endoscopic surgery. The rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria has renewed the interest in minimally invasive sinus lavage to both avoid aggressive surgical interventions and identify appropriate antibiotic therapy. In this article, we describe the safety and feasibility of a new device in human patients and evaluate its efficacy as a treatment before the traditional sinus surgery in acute rhinosinusitis.

METHODS

The device with its seeker-shaped guiding tube and rotating wire can enter the sinus cavity through the natural ostium, pulverize the inspissated mucus, and enable lavage and culture sampling without the need for sinus puncturing. It was tested in 6 patients with chronic sinusitis under general anesthesia during endoscopic sinus surgery and in additional 10 patients with maxillary acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in outpatient settings under local anesthesia.

RESULTS

The device enabled rapid, efficient, and atraumatic insertion of the wire into the occluded sinuses. The rotating wire permitted pulverization of the thick mucus, which enabled irrigation without mucosal damage or adverse events. Overall, 9 of 10 patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis demonstrated remarkable improvements and were discharged the following day with no acute symptoms. The visual analog scale score for pain dropped from 8.9 to 0.4. The remaining one patient underwent endoscopic sinus surgery subsequently. None of the patients treated during endoscopic sinus surgery developed any adverse events.

Overuse of diagnostic tools and medications in acute rhinosinusitis in Spain: a population-based study (the PROSINUS study)

OBJECTIVES

Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) has a high incidence. Diagnosis is clinical, and evolution is mostly self-limited. The aim of this study was to describe the sociodemographic characteristics and use of diagnostic tools and medications in patients with ARS.

DESIGN

This is a prospective observational study in real-life clinical practice.

SETTING

Patients with clinical diagnosis of ARS (n=2610) were included from ear, nose and throat clinics in Spain. A second visit at resolution was done.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients were classified according to the duration of symptoms: viral ARS (≤10 days), postviral ARS (>10 days, ≤12 weeks) and chronic rhinosinusitis (>12 weeks).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms, disease severity, quality of life (Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-16), used diagnostic tools and medications, and the management performed by primary care physicians (PCPs) and by otorhinolaryngologists (ORLs) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the patients 36% were classified as having viral ARS, 63% postviral ARS and 1% as chronic rhinosinusitis. Working in a poorly air-conditioned environment was a risk factor (OR: 2.26, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.04) in developing postviral ARS. A higher number of diagnostic tools (rhinoscopy/endoscopy: 80% vs 70%; plain X-ray: 70% vs 55%; CT scan: 22% vs 12%; P<0.0001) were performed in postviral than viral cases. PCPs performed more X-rays than ORLs (P<0.0001). Patients, more those with postviral than viral ARS, received a high number of medications (oral antibiotics: 76% vs 62%; intranasal corticosteroids: 54% vs 38%; antihistamines: 46% vs 31%; mucolytic: 48% vs 60%; P<0.0001). PCPs prescribed more antibiotics, antihistamines and mucolytics than ORLs (P<0.0068). More patients with postviral than viral ARS reported symptoms of potential complications (1.5% vs 0.4%; P=0.0603). Independently of prescribed medications, quality of life was more affected in patients with postviral (38.7±14.2 vs 36.0±15.3; P=0.0031) than those with viral ARS. ARS resolution was obtained after 6.04 (viral) and 16.55 (postviral) days, with intranasal corticosteroids being associated with longer (OR: 1.07, 95% 1.02 to 1.12) and phytotherapy with shorter (OR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00) duration.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant overuse of diagnostic tools and prescribed medications, predominantly oral antibiotics, by PCPs and ORLs, for viral and postviral ARS.

Evidence and evidence gaps in therapies of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis

Therapeutic decisions in otorhinolaryngology are based on clinical experience, surgical skills, and scientific evidence. Recently, evidence-based therapies have gained increased attention and importance due to their potential to improve the individual patient's treatment and their potential at the same time to reduce treatment costs. In clinical practice, it is almost impossible to stay ahead of the increasing mass of literature and on the other hand critically assess the presented data. A solid scientific and statistical knowledge as well as a significant amount of spare time are required to detect systematic bias and other errors in study designs, also with respect to assessing whether or not a study should be part of an individual therapeutic decision. Meta-analyses, reviews, and clinical guidelines are, therefore, of increasing importance for evidence-based therapy in clinical practice. This review is an update of the availability of external evidence for the treatment of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis. It becomes evident that both groups of diseases differ significantly in the availability of external evidence. Furthermore, it becomes obvious that surgical treatment options are normally based on evidence of significantly lower quality than medical treatment options.

Diagnosis and Management of Rhinosinusitis: Highlights from the 2015 Practice Parameter

Rhinosinusitis is a commonly diagnosed disease in the USA. Rhinosinusitis is classified as acute, recurrent, or chronic (with or without nasal polyps). While acute rhinosinusitis is diagnosed by history and physical examination, chronic rhinosinusitis and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis are diagnosed based on symptoms and the presence of disease on either a sinus CT scan and/or endoscopy. Management of uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis includes analgesics, saline irrigation, and/or intranasal steroids. Antibiotics and intranasal steroids are recommended for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Intranasal and oral steroids with antibiotics are recommended to treat chronic rhinosinusitis although the evidence for antibiotics is weak. Biologics such as omalizumab and mepolizumab are being investigated for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Surgery may be indicated in management of refractory chronic rhinosinusitis and rarely for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. This review discusses highlights of the updated 2014 practice parameter and up-to-date evidence from other literature sources.

[Clinical efficacy of a herbal drug combination in acute viral rhinosinusitis]

BACKGROUND

Acute rhinosinusitis is a frequent inflammatory disease of the mucosa of the nose and paranasal sinuses, usually associated with substantial morbidity having considerable socioeconomic impact. A new herbal drug based on a dry extract of a combination of 5 medicinal drugs (Sinupret® extract Dragees) was tested in a confirmatory trial in patients with acute viral rhinosinusitis.

METHODS

386 patients with symptomatic acute viral rhinosinusitis have been treated with the herbal drug combination (daily dosage 3 × 160 mg) or placebo in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial for 15 days. Primary efficacy endpoint was the investigator assessed symptom score at the end of therapy (Major Symptom Score, MSSINV).

RESULTS

Treatment with verum lead to a statistically significant, clinically relevant improvement of the symptom score (2.07 ± 0.18 [SEM] vs. 3.47 ± 0.28 score points, p = 0.0001; PP: N = 300) compared to placebo at visit 5. The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) was 7 (PP). Adverse events occurred in 9.8% of the patients treated with verum and 14.1% of the patients treated with placebo. No serious adverse event was observed. The investigators assessed the tolerability of the herbal drug combination predominantly as good and very good (96.4% verum, 95.3% placebo).

CONCLUSION

The results prove the efficacy and tolerability of the herbal drug in the indication acute viral rhinosinusitis. Especially due to the favorable benefit-risk ratio the drug represents a suitable treatment alternative.

Intranasal glucocorticosteroids - not only in allergic rhinitis In the 40th anniversary of intranasal glucocorticosteroids' introduction

It has been 40 years since Niels Mygind's publication in British Medical Journal on intranasal application of beclomethasone dipropionate aerosol in allergic rhinitis (AR). Since then a new era in treatment of allergic and nonallergic upper airway diseases began. This publication presents current concepts on application of intranasal glucocorticosteroids (inGCS) in treatment of upper airway diseases and in particular of AR and rhinosinusitis. Nonquestionable advantage of inGCS is their strong anti-inflammatory local action with little impact on general health responsible for few and benign side effects. Main way of action of glucocorticosteroids is connected with binding to the intracellular glucocorticosteroid receptor and its impact on nuclear cytoplasmic transcriptional factors. Glucocorticosteroids suppress gene expression of factors responsible for generating and supporting inflammatory processes, proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines production, and adhesive molecules expression. It appears that glucocorticosteroids have also other mechanisms of action, non-involving intracellular receptors, leading to inhibition of early and late phase of allergic reaction. At the moment the following glucocorticosteroids are registered in Poland: beclomethasone, budesonide, fluticasone propionate, fluticasone furoate, and mometasone furoate. Furoates earn special attention as their lateral furoate ester chain makes the molecules highly lipophilic, and hence easily absorbed by nasal mucous membranes, epithelium and cell membrane phospholipids. This minimizes their general action and maximizes local action. According to current state of knowledge topical glucocorticosteroids are used in the following upper airway diseases with different inflammatory mechanisms: AR, non-AR, particularly NARES, acute rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps, adenoid hypertrophy and rhinitis in bronchial asthma.

Intranasal steroids for acute sinusitis

BACKGROUND

Acute sinusitis is a common reason for primary care visits. It causes significant symptoms and often results in time off work and school.

OBJECTIVES

We examined whether intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are effective in relieving symptoms of acute sinusitis in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4, MEDLINE (January 1966 to May week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1990 to May 2013) and bibliographies of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing INCS treatment to placebo or no intervention in adults and children with acute sinusitis. Acute sinusitis was defined by clinical diagnosis and confirmed by radiological evidence or by nasal endoscopy. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with either resolution or improvement of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were any adverse events that required discontinuation of treatment, drop-outs before the end of the study, rates of relapse, complications and return to school or work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed trial quality and resolved discrepancies by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were found for inclusion in this update. Four studies involving 1943 participants with acute sinusitis met our inclusion criteria. The trials were well-designed and double-blind and studied INCS versus placebo or no intervention for 15 or 21 days. The rates of loss to follow-up were 7%, 11%, 41% and 10%. When we combined the results from the three trials included in the meta-analysis, participants receiving INCS were more likely to experience resolution or improvement in symptoms than those receiving placebo (73% versus 66.4%; risk ratio (RR) 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.18). Higher doses of INCS had a stronger effect on improvement of symptoms or complete relief: for mometasone furoate 400 µg versus 200 µg (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18 versus RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.11). No significant adverse events were reported and there was no significant difference in the drop-out and recurrence rates for the two treatment groups and for groups receiving higher doses of INCS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is limited for acute sinusitis confirmed by radiology or nasal endoscopy but supports the use of INCS as a monotherapy or as an adjuvant therapy to antibiotics. Clinicians should weigh the modest but clinically important benefits against possible minor adverse events when prescribing therapy.

Chronic rhinosinusitis in children

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) affects nearly 37 million people in the United States each year and accounts for approximately $6 billion in direct and indirect health care costs. Despite its prevalence and significant impact, little is known about its exact cause and pathophysiology, and significant controversy remains regarding appropriate treatment options. Basic science research, however, has shown recent promise toward improving understanding of the innate and environmental factors underlying the pathophysiology of CRS. The hope is that this will also lead to advances in treatment for children adversely affected by this common yet complicated disease.

Systemic corticosteroid monotherapy for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute rhinosinusitis are frequently encountered in primary care. Although corticosteroids are being increasingly used for symptom control, evidence supporting their use is inconclusive. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of systemic corticosteroid monotherapy for clinically diagnosed, uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis.

METHODS

We conducted a block-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial at 54 primary care practices (68 family physicians) in the Netherlands between Dec. 30, 2008, and Apr. 28, 2011. Adult patients with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis were randomly assigned to receive either prednisolone 30 mg/d or placebo for 7 days and asked to complete a symptom diary for 14 days. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with resolution of facial pain or pressure on day 7.

RESULTS

Of the 185 patients included in the trial (93 in the treatment group, 92 in the placebo group), 2 withdrew from the study and 9 were excluded from the primary analysis because of incomplete symptom reporting. The remaining 174 patients (88 in the treatment group, 86 in the placebo group) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The proportions of patients with resolution of facial pain or pressure on day 7 were 62.5% (55/88) in the prednisolone group and 55.8% (48/86) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference 6.7%, 95% confidence interval -7.9% to 21.2%). The groups were similar with regard to the decrease over time in the proportion of patients with total symptoms (combined symptoms of runny nose, postnasal discharge, nasal congestion, cough and facial pain) and health-related quality of life. Adverse events were mild and did not differ significantly between the groups.

INTERPRETATION

Systemic corticosteroid monotherapy had no clinically relevant beneficial effects among patients with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis. Netherlands Trial Register registration no. 1295 (www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp).

Intranasal corticosteroids in management of acute sinusitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Acute sinusitis is a common condition in ambulatory care, where it is frequently treated with antibiotics, despite little evidence of their benefit. Intranasal corticosteroids might relieve symptoms; however, evidence for this benefit is currently unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal corticosteroids on the symptoms of acute sinusitis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases until February 2011 for studies comparing intranasal corticosteroids with placebo in children or adults having clinical symptoms and signs of acute sinusitis or rhinosinusitis in ambulatory settings. We excluded chronic/allergic sinusitis. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the studies' methodologic quality.

RESULTS

We included 6 studies having a total of 2,495 patients. In 5 studies, antibiotics were prescribed in addition to corticosteroids or placebo. Intranasal corticosteroids resulted in a significant, small increase in resolution of or improvement in symptoms at days 14 to 21 (risk difference [RD] = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13). Analysis of individual symptom scores revealed most consistently significant benefits for facial pain and congestion. Subgroup analysis by time of reported outcomes showed a significant beneficial effect at 21 days (RD = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.17), but not at 14 to 15 days (RD = 0.05; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.11). Meta-regression analysis of trials using different doses of mometasone furoate showed a significant dose-response relationship (P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal corticosteroids offer a small therapeutic benefit in acute sinusitis, which may be greater with high doses and with courses of 21 days' duration. Further trials are needed in antibiotic-naïve patients.

IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis in Children and Adults

Evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and initial management of suspected acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in adults and children were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America comprising clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, otolaryngology, public health, epidemiology, and adult and pediatric infectious disease specialties. Recommendations for diagnosis, laboratory investigation, and empiric antimicrobial and adjunctive therapy were developed.

Evaluation and management of the patient with "sinus"

The patient with "sinus" is common. However, an accurate diagnosis for a patient's sinus complaints may be elusive. The diagnostic uncertainty with these patients is a result of nonspecific symptoms, subtle or absent physical examination findings, and limited diagnostic testing options. Rhinitis should be distinguished from sinusitis. In acute illness, viral upper respiratory tract infection should be distinguished from acute bacterial sinusitis. For patients with chronic sinus symptoms, objective evidence of paranasal sinus inflammation should be confirmed before labeling the patient with chronic sinusitis.

Intranasal steroids for acute sinusitis

BACKGROUND

Acute sinusitis is a common reason for primary care visits. It causes significant symptoms and often results in time off work and school.

OBJECTIVES

We examined whether intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are effective in relieving symptoms of acute sinusitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2008, issue 4) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2008), EMBASE (1990 to October 2008) and bibliographies of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered eligible if they compared INCS treatment to placebo treatment of a control group for acute sinusitis; acute sinusitis was defined by clinical diagnosis and confirmed by radiological evidence or by nasal endoscopy. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with either resolution or improvement of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were any adverse events that required discontinuation of treatment, drop-outs before the end of the study, rates of relapse, complications and return to school or work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data, assessed trial quality and resolved discrepancies by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies with 1943 participants met the inclusion criteria. The trials were well designed, double-blind, placebo controlled in which the included participants had acute sinusitis. The treatment assigned was INCS versus control treatment for 15 or 21 days. The rates of loss to follow up in the studies were 7%, 11%, 41% and 10%. When the results from the three trials included in the meta-analysis were combined, participants receiving INCS were more likely to have resolution or improvement of symptoms than those receiving placebo (73% versus 66.4%; risk ratio (RR) 1.11; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18). Higher doses of INCS had a stronger effect on improvement or complete relief of symptoms: for mometasone furoate (MFNS) 400 mcg versus 200 mcg, (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18 versus RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.11). No significant adverse events were reported and there was no significant difference in the drop-out and recurrence rate for the two treatment groups and for groups receiving higher doses of INCS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For acute sinusitis confirmed by radiology or nasal endoscopy, current evidence is limited, but supports the use of INCS as a monotherapy or as an adjuvant therapy to antibiotics. Clinicians should weigh the modest but clinically important benefits against possible minor adverse events when prescribing therapy.