Different types of intranasal steroids for chronic rhinosinusitis

Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Diagnostic Challenges and Management Strategies

Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent yet often underdiagnosed condition affecting 1-5% of children globally, with higher prevalence in populations such as those with Down syndrome and obesity. Characterized by recurrent upper airway obstruction during sleep, OSA can lead to serious health consequences, including neurocognitive deficits, behavioral issues, and cardiovascular complications. The diagnosis is complicated by symptom overlap with conditions like Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) while polysomnography (PSG) remains the gold standard for diagnosis, access to this test is limited in many regions. Treatment options include lifestyle modifications, surgical interventions like adenotonsillectomy, and non-invasive approaches such as upper airway stenting for patients who are non-compliant with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. Evidence indicates that adenotonsillectomy significantly reduces the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in children with adenotonsillar hypertrophy, although residual OSA is common, particularly in high-risk populations like those with Prader-Willi syndrome. Recent studies have explored pharmacological treatments, advanced diagnostic techniques, and machine learning applications to improve outcomes. This review emphasizes the importance of a multidisciplinary, individualized approach to the management of pediatric OSA, highlighting the need for further research into innovative therapeutic strategies and long-term outcomes for affected children.

Olfactory Dysfunction in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Effect of Treatment with Emphasis on Biological Therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Olfactory dysfunction significantly impacts quality of life that affects a majority of the patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The aim of this review is to explore the impact of various treatment regimens on olfactory dysfunction in patients diagnosed with CRSwNP.

RECENT FINDINGS

Accurate assessment of olfactory dysfunction remains challenging and should incorporate both psychophysical tests and patient-reported outcomes. Patients with CRSwNP appear capable of reliably evaluating their olfactory function. Standard treatment such as intranasal corticosteroids and surgery have limited capability of restoring the sense of smell. Oral corticosteroids have a far greater potency, albeit short-lived and at the cost of adverse events and side effects. Recent studies on registered biological agents- specifically dupilumab, mepolizumab, and omalizumab- indicate their effectiveness in restoring olfactory function in severe CRSwNP. According to meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, dupilumab shows superiority; however, direct comparative studies are necessary.

Budesonide aqueous nasal spray: an updated review in managing chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a frequent medical condition. Type 2 inflammation signs CRSwNP in western countries. Type 2 inflammation leads to nasal airflow limitation. Budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS) is an intranasal corticosteroid (INCS); it has been launched in the early 1980s. BANS is indicated for treating allergic rhinitis, nonallergic rhinitis, and nasal polyps (both as treatment and prevention after surgery). Consolidated evidence documented its efficacy in treating CRSwNP. In addition, BANS is safe with negligible local and systemic side effects. Recent guidelines for patients with CRSwNP recommend using INCS as the first line in many situations. In particular, patients may assess the perception of symptoms' severity using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). A score >5/10 means uncontrolled symptoms in both diseases and requires adequate treatment. BANS could appropriately be used in patients with uncontrolled symptoms and/or moderate/severe nasal obstruction. In addition, BANS may adequately integrate surgery and biologics for CRSwNP management. In conclusion, BANS represents a valuable option in managing patients with type 2-mediated CRSwNP.

The updated role of budesonide in managing children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in childhood and adolescence. A type 2 inflammation characterizes AR and, mainly, sustains nasal obstruction. Budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS) is an intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) available since the early 1980s. BANS is indicated for treating allergic rhinitis. There is evidence about its efficacy in treating children and adolescents with seasonal and perennial AR. In addition, BANS is safe with negligible local and systemic side effects. Recent guidelines for patients with AR recommend the use of INCS as first line in many situations. In particular, AR patients (and their parents) may assess the perception of symptoms' severity using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). A score ≥5/10 means uncontrolled symptoms and requires adequate treatment. BANS could appropriately be used in patients with uncontrolled symptoms and/or moderate/severe nasal obstruction. In conclusion, BANS represents a valuable option in managing children and adolescents with AR.

Pädiatrische Rhinologie

The following review article highlights key topics in pediatric rhinology that are currently the focus in research and at conferences as well as in the interdisciplinary discussion between otorhinolaryngologists and pediatricians. In particular, congenital malformations such as choanal atresia or nasal dermoid cysts are discussed, followed by statements on the current procedures for sinogenic orbital complications as well as on the diagnosis and therapy of chronic rhinosinusitis in children. Furthermore, updates on the role of the ENT specialist in the care for children with cystic fibrosis and primary ciliary dyskinesia are provided.

In Vivo Fluticasone Absorption in Surgical Patients

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are a treatment mainstay of chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic rhinitis. Current computational models demonstrate that >90% of INCS drug deposition occurs on the head of the inferior turbinate and nasal valve, rather than the actual sinuses. These models do not consider mucociliary clearance which propels mucus posteriorly, nor do they consider the absorption of the drug. The purpose of this study is to better understand the exact anatomical location where INCS are absorbed.

METHODS

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic rhinitis taking fluticasone pre-operatively who were scheduled for functional endoscopic sinus surgery and inferior turbinate reduction, respectively, were recruited. Intra-operative tissue samples were obtained from predetermined locations within the sinonasal cavity. Mass spectrometry was then used to quantify the amount of absorption in each specific anatomic location to determine the largest amount of absorption.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were included in our study. The greatest fluticasone absorption levels across the sinonasal anatomy were at the anterior inferior turbinate (5.7 ngl/mL), ethmoid sinus, (4.4 ng/mL), posterior inferior turbinate (3.7 ng/mL), maxillary sinus (1.3 ng/mL), and the sphenoethmoidal recess (0.72 ng/mL) respectively. Absorption was significantly higher in revision surgery compared to surgically naïve patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Computation fluid dynamic models of the nasal passage are useful models to help predict intranasal particle flow. However, these models do not incorporate or consider the important mucociliary clearance system, leading to absorption of fluticasone throughout the sinonasal cavity far beyond that predicted by these models.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Laryngoscope, 134:1551-1555, 2024.

Methotrexate for recurrent chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: A randomized, controlled, phase 2 clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, controlled, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose methotrexate as maintenance therapy for recurrent postoperative chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNPs).

METHODS

Forty-one patients with CRSwNPs who experienced postoperative polyp recurrence(s) were randomly divided into three groups to receive one of the following treatments for 8 weeks: daily intranasal mometasone furoate monohydrate 200 mcg (control [intranasal corticosteroids (INCS)] arm, n = 13]); daily per oral methylprednisolone 8 mg (oral corticosteroids [OCS] arm, n = 14); and once weekly per oral 10 mg methotrexate (MTX arm, n = 14). All patients were assessed at three clinical visits according to the Lund-Kennedy endoscopic grading system (LKES), visual analog scale (VAS), Turkish version of the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), butanol olfactory threshold test (BuOT), serum total IgE level, presence of peripheral eosinophilia, serum biochemical assays, and adverse events.

RESULTS

All efficacy outcome measures significantly improved in all three groups, except for the nonrecovery of peripheral eosinophilia in the INCS group. There was no significant difference among the groups in terms of LKES scores. Scores for the Turkish version of the SNOT-22, PNIF, BuOT, and serum IgE levels were also similar among the groups. However, total VAS scores recovered significantly better in the INCS group than in the MTX group. Serum biochemical assays remained normal in all groups. Adverse events were minor and observed only in the OCS group.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose MTX was a safe and effective maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent postoperative CRSwNPs.

Dasatinib: a potential tyrosine kinase inhibitor to fight against multiple cancer malignancies

Dasatinib is the 2nd generation TKI (Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor) having the potential to treat numerous forms of leukemic and cancer patients and it is 300 times more potent than imatinib. Cancer is the major cause of death globally and need to enumerate novel strategies to coping with it. Various novel therapeutics introduced into the market for ease in treating various forms of cancer. We reviewed and evaluated all the related aspects of dasatinib, which can enhance the knowledge about dasatinib therapeutics methodology, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetics, side effects, advantages, disadvantages, various kinds of interactions and its novel formulations as well.

Considerations for shared decision-making in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Shared decision-making is an approach where physicians and patients work together to determine a personalized treatment course. Such an approach is integral to patient-centered care in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). CRSwNP is a chronic inflammatory condition of the sinonasal cavity that can severely impact physical health, smell, and quality of life (QOL). Traditional standard-of-care treatment options include topical (i.e. sprays) and oral corticosteroids and endoscopic sinus surgery, but more recently, novel corticosteroid delivery methods (i.e. high volume irrigations, recently-approved exhalation breath-powered delivering devices, and drug-eluting steroid implants) and 3 new FDA approved biologics directed against type II immunomodulators have become available. The availability of these therapeutics offers exciting new opportunities in CRSwNP management but requires personalized and shared-decision making as each modality has variable impacts on CRSwNP and related comorbid conditions. Studies have published treatment algorithms, but the practical use of these lean guidelines is heavily influenced by the lens of the treating physician, the most common being otolaryngologists and allergy immunologists. Clinical equipoise occurs when there is no basis for one intervention to be regarded as “better” than another. While most guidelines, in general, support the use of topical corticosteroids with or without oral corticosteroids followed by ESS for the majority of unoperated CRSwNP patients, there are situations of clinical equipoise that arise particularly in CRSwNP who have failed surgery or those with severe comorbid conditions. In the shared decision-making process, clinicians and patients must consider symptomatology, goals, comfort, compliance, treatment efficacy, and treatment cost when determining the initial choice of therapy and escalation of therapy with the potential use of multiple modalities for recalcitrant CRSwNP. A summary of salient considerations that might constitute shared decision-making is presented in this summary.

Effect of postoperative systemic prednisolone on short-term and long-term outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: A multi-centered randomized clinical trial

Introduction

The objective of this study was to determine whether postoperative additive systemic steroid administration in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) impacted selected endoscopic, subjective and objective outcome measures.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, noninferiority multicenter trial of n=106 patients with CRSwNP. All patients underwent primary functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) followed by topical nasal steroids. Patients were randomized to a systemic steroid or placebo for 1 month. Patients were followed up for 2 years over 9 time points. The primary outcome measures were the differences between groups with respect to the nasal polyp score (NPS) and sinonasal quality of life (SNQoL). Secondary outcome measures included interactions with respect to the Lund-Kennedy score (LKS), sinonasal symptoms, general quality of life (GQoL), 16-item odor identification test scores, recurrence rates, need for revision surgery and mucus biomarker levels.

Results

106 patients were randomized to either the placebo or the systemic steroid group (n=53 per group). Postoperative systemic steroids were not superior to placebo with respect to all primary (p= 0.077) and secondary outcome measures (p>0.05 for all). Reported adverse events were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the addition of postoperative systemic steroids after primary FESS did not confer a benefit over topical steroid nasal spray alone with respect to NPS, SNQOL, LKS, GQOL, sinonasal symptoms, smell scores, recurrence rates, the need for revision surgery or biomarkers over a short-term follow-up of up to 9 months and a long-term follow-up of up to 24 months in CRSwNP patients. Functional endoscopic surgery did, however, show a strong effect on all outcome measures, which remained relatively stable up to the endpoint at 2 years.

Geographic Variation in Otolaryngologist Intranasal Steroid Prescribing Patterns Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are a commonly prescribed medication to treat various rhinological conditions. However, no prior studies have looked at factors and patterns that influence the rates of INCS prescriptions among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the patterns of INCS prescriptions by otolaryngologists for Medicare beneficiaries in the United States between 2013 and 2017.

METHODS

Data on the most common INCS prescriptions by otolaryngologists for Medicare beneficiaries were obtained from the 2013 to 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (PUF) and the Part D Public Use Files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). INCS prescriptions were analyzed by cost, state, provider, and regional temperature. State temperature data was collected through the National Centers for Environmental Information.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, the total claims per beneficiary for fluticasone, mometasone, and triamcinolone combined increased from 2.31 to 2.39. Combined cost/beneficiary was similar for mometasone and triamcinolone at 102.47 and 103.60 respectively, while it was much lower for fluticasone at 39.12. There was a strong correlation between otolaryngology providers per beneficiary in each state and total claims per state with a correlation coefficient of .79. Additionally, comparing the average state temperature to the claims/beneficiary yielded a moderately strong correlation coefficient of .44, suggesting that temperature was a possible factor for INCS prescription patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

INCS prescriptions by otolaryngologists and the number of INCS beneficiaries have increased between 2013 and 2017. Over the same time period, the costs of fluticasone and triamcinolone have decreased while the cost of mometasone increased. Total providers by state correlated with claims per state. Additionally, average annual temperature was positively correlated with INCS claims per beneficiary in each state.

Pharmacology, particle deposition and drug administration techniques of intranasal corticosteroids for treating allergic rhinitis

This review presents an overview of the available literature regarding intranasal corticosteroids (INCs) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Various treatment options exist for AR including INCs, antihistamines and leucotriene antagonists. INCs are considered to be the most effective therapy for moderate-to-severe AR, as they are effective against nasal and ocular symptoms and improve quality of life. Their safety has been widely observed. INCs are effective and safe for short-term use. Local adverse events are observed but generally well-tolerated. The occurrence of (serious) systemic adverse events is unlikely but cannot be ruled out. There is a lack of long-term safety data. INC may cause serious eye complications. The risk of INCs on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, on bone mineral density reduction or osteoporosis and on growth in children, should be considered during treatment. Pharmacological characteristics of INCs (e.g. the mode of action and pharmacokinetics) are well known and described. We sought to gain insight into whether specific properties affect the efficacy and safety of INCs, including nasal particle deposition, which the administration technique affects. However, advances are lacking regarding the improved understanding of the effect of particle deposition on efficacy and safety and the effect of the administration technique. This review emphasizes the gaps in knowledge regarding this subject. Advances in research and health care are necessary to improve care for patients with AR.

[Strategies for preventing postoperative recurrence of adenoid hypertrophy]

Adenoid hypertrophy is a common disease in pediatric otorhinolaryngology. Surgical resection is the main treatment at present, but many children still face the risk of postoperative recurrence or even secondary surgery. In order to reduce the postoperative recurrence rate and provide reference information for clinical medical staff and parents of the children, this review was carried out to analyze the domestic and foreign pertinent literature in recent years and put forward overall prevention strategies base on the related factors of recurrence.

Different Methods and Formulations of Drugs and Vaccines for Nasal Administration

Nasal drug delivery is advantageous when compared with other routes of drug delivery as it avoids the hepatic first-pass effect, blood–brain barrier penetration, and compliance issues with parenteral administration. However, nasal administration also has some limitations, such as its low bioavailability due to metabolism on the mucosal surface, and irreversible damage to the nasal mucosa due to the ingredients added into the formula. Moreover, the method of nasal administration is not applicable to all drugs. The current review presents the nasal anatomy and mucosal environment for the nasal delivery of vaccines and drugs, as well as presents various methods for enhancing nasal absorption, and different drug carriers and delivery devices to improve nasal drug delivery. It also presents future prospects on the nasal drug delivery of vaccines and drugs.

Applicability of RPMI 2650 and Calu-3 Cell Models for Evaluation of Nasal Formulations

The RPMI 2650 and Calu-3 cell lines have been previously evaluated as models of the nasal and airway epithelial barrier, and they have demonstrated the potential to be used in drug permeation studies. However, limited data exist on the utilization of these two cell models for the assessment of nasal formulations. In our study, we tested these cell lines for the evaluation of in vitro permeation of intranasally administered drugs having a local and systemic effect from different solution- and suspension-based formulations to observe how the effects of formulations reflect on the measured in vitro drug permeability. Both models were shown to be sufficiently discriminative and able to reveal the effect of formulation compositions on drug permeability, as they demonstrated differences in the in vitro drug permeation comparable to the in vivo bioavailability. Good correlation with the available bioavailability data was also established for a limited number of drugs formulated as intranasal solutions. The investigated cell lines can be applied to the evaluation of in vitro permeation of intranasally administered drugs with a local and systemic effect from solution- and suspension-based formulations.

Intranasal Corticosteroids: Topical Potency, Systemic Activity and Therapeutic Index

Intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) therapy is the preferred treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). Although all INCSs for the treatment of AR are considered safe and effective, differences in potency, molecular structure features and physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties could result in differences in clinical efficacy and safety. Higher glucocorticoid receptor (GR) binding affinity of INCS is associated with higher lipophilicity, nasal tissue retention and topical potency. Higher topical potency is also accompanied by low oral bioavailability and high systemic clearance conferring low systemic exposure, reduced potential for systemic adverse effects and an improved therapeutic index. It has been shown that adverse events related to systemic exposure of INCSs in children are low. Although INCSs mostly produce low systemic effects, use of an INCS with low systemic exposure in patients on multiple corticosteroid (CS) therapies could help reduce the total systemic burden of CS therapy. Despite differences in topical potency, physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties between INCSs, clinical studies of INCSs in the treatment of AR generally show no clinically important differences between these compounds, and poor correlation between INCS topical potency and clinical response. However, the lack of head-to-head comparisons of INCSs in clinical studies conducted in more severe AR patients should be noted. This narrative review provides an assessment of the therapeutic relevance of topical potency and the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of INCSs and describes for the first time the relationship between topical potency and therapeutic index using pharmacological features of INCSs. It concludes that higher GR binding affinity and topical potency can potentially improve the therapeutic index of an INCS. Therefore, both efficacy and systemic exposure profiles should be considered when comparing INCS regimens in terms of therapeutic equivalence, to aid clinical decision-making and avoid the assumption that all INCS formulations are the same when considering treatment options.

Inter-society consensus for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in infants, children and adolescents with airway diseases

BACKGROUND

In 2019, a multidisciplinary panel of experts from eight Italian scientific paediatric societies developed a consensus document for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders. The aim is to provide healthcare providers with a multidisciplinary document including indications useful in the clinical practice. The consensus document was intended to be addressed to paediatricians who work in the Paediatric Divisions, the Primary Care Services and the Emergency Departments, as well as to Residents or PhD students, paediatric nurses and specialists or consultants in paediatric pulmonology, allergy, infectious diseases, and ear, nose, and throat medicine.

METHODS

Clinical questions identifying Population, Intervention(s), Comparison and Outcome(s) were addressed by methodologists and a general agreement on the topics and the strength of the recommendations (according to the GRADE system) was obtained following the Delphi method. The literature selection included secondary sources such as evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews and was integrated with primary studies subsequently published.

RESULTS

The expert panel provided a number of recommendations on the use of inhaled corticosteroids in preschool wheezing, bronchial asthma, allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, adenoid hypertrophy, laryngitis and laryngospasm.

CONCLUSIONS

We provided a multidisciplinary update on the current recommendations for the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders requiring inhaled corticosteroids, in order to share useful indications, identify gaps in knowledge and drive future research.

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps.   'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in other inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in serious adverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receiving mepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9).  It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in disease severity at 25 weeks: on a 0- to 10-point VAS, disease severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Five studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9). We did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity. It is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Almost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. In these patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events. Mepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events. Omalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).

Current Perspective on Nasal Delivery Systems for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis is an upper respiratory disease during which topical drug treatment via the nasal cavity is the most actively utilized therapeutic strategy. In addition to steroids, antibiotics, and antifungal agents, which are widely used in clinical practice, research on novel topical agents to improve the bacterial biofilm or mucociliary clearance remains ongoing. Moreover, owing to the complex structure of the nasal cavity, the effects of nasal drug delivery vary depending on factors related to delivery fluid dynamics, including device, volume, and compounds. In this article, we review methods and compounds that have been applied to chronic rhinosinusitis management and introduce recent advances and future perspectives in nasal drug delivery for upper respiratory diseases.

Adult chronic rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) occurs in >10% of the adult population in Europe and the USA and can be differentiated into CRS without nasal polyps and CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Both phenotypes are characterized by a high disease burden and an overlapping spectrum of symptoms, with facial pain and loss of smell being the most differentiating. Great progress has been made in the understanding of CRS pathophysiology: from the epithelium and epithelial-mesenchymal transition to innate and adaptive immunity pathways and, finally, on the role of eosinophils and Staphylococcus aureus in the persistence of disease. Although clinical manifestations and diagnostic tools (including nasal endoscopy and imaging) have undergone major changes over the past few years, management (including pharmacotherapy, surgery and biologics) has experienced enormous progress based on the growing knowledge of key mediators in severe CRSwNP. The introduction of endotyping has led to a differentiation of 'tailored' surgical approaches, focusing on the mucosal concept in those with severe CRSwNP and on the identification of patients eligible for extended surgery and possibly biologics in the future.

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps.   'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in related inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (currently, monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse events (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs. Of 986 adult participants, 984 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (score 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, the SNOT-22 score was 19.61 points lower (better) in participants receiving dupilumab (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). Symptom severity measured on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) was 3.00 lower in those receiving dupilumab (95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). The risk of serious adverse events may be lower in the dupilumab group (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.75; 3 studies; 782 participants; low certainty).  The number of participants requiring nasal polyp surgery (actual or planned) during the treatment period is probably lower in those receiving dupilumab (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.52; 2 studies; 725 participants; moderate certainty). Change in the extent of disease using the Lund Mackay computerised tomography (CT) score (0 to 24, higher = worse) was -7.00 (95% CI -9.61 to -4.39; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty), a large effect favouring the dupilumab group.  The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (0 to 100, higher = better; MCID 8 points) was used to measure change in generic quality of life. The mean difference favouring dupilumab was 8.59 (95% CI 5.31 to 11.86; 2 studies; 706 participants; moderate certainty). There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 3 studies; 783 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL measured with the SNOT-22 at 25 weeks was 13.26 points lower (better) in participants receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9).  It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in s ymptom severity: on a 0- to 10-point VAS symptom severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether or not the overall risk that patients still need surgery at trial end is lower in the mepolizumab group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94; 2 studies; 135 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether mepolizumab reduces the extent of disease as measured by endoscopic nasal polyps score (scale range 0 to 8). The mean difference was 1.23 points lower in the mepolizumab group (MD -1.23, 95% -1.79 to -0.68; 2 studies; 137 participants; very low certainty). The difference in generic quality of life (EQ-5D) was 5.68 (95% CI -1.18 to 12.54; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty), favouring the mepolizumab group. This difference is smaller than the MCID of 8 points. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.73, 95% 0.36 to 1.47; 2 studies; 135 participants; low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three very small studies (65 participants) evaluated omalizumab. We are very uncertain about the effect of omalizumab on disease-specific HRQL, severe adverse events, extent of disease (CT scan scores), generic HRQL and adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, using regular topical nasal steroids, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo, and reduces the extent of the disease as measured on a CT scan. It probably also improves symptoms and generic HRQL and there is no evidence of an increased risk of serious adverse events. It may reduce the need for further surgery. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis. In similar patients, mepolizumab may improve both disease-specific and generic HRQL. It is uncertain whether it reduces the need for surgery or improves nasal polyp scores. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis. It is uncertain if there is a difference in symptom severity and the risk of serious adverse events. We are uncertain about the effects of omalizumab.

Inflammation, infection, and allergy of upper airways: new insights from national and real-world studies

The upper airways (UA) should be considered as a functional unit. Current functional anatomy divides URT in three, mutually dependent, "junction boxes": i) the ostio-meatal complex (OMC), ii) the spheno-ethmoidal recess (SER), and iii) the rhinopharynx (RP). Correct ventilation and effective mucociliary clearance of these sites significantly affect the healthy physiology of the entire respiratory system. The OMC, SER, and RP obstruction is the first pathogenic step in the inflammatory/infectious cascade of UA disorders. The inflammation of the respiratory mucosa is the main pathogenic factor for airway obstruction. Moreover, bacterial biofilm (a strategy modality of bacterial survival) is an important local cause of systemic antibiotic ineffectiveness, recurrent infections, and antibiotic resistance. Health microbiota guarantees UA wellness; on the contrary, dysbiosis promotes and worsens UA infections. Allergy, namely type 2 inflammation, is a common cause of UA obstruction such as promoting in turn infections. Fiberoptic endoscopy is a mandatory diagnostic tool in clinical practice. Nasal cytology, mainly concerning flow cytometry, allows defining rhinitis phenotypes so allowing a precision medicine approach. Several conventional therapeutic approaches are available, but efficacy and safety should be ever properly considered before the prescription. Also, complementary medicine plays a fruitful role in the management of UA diseases. National and real-world studies are reported and discussed as they may be useful in daily clinical practice.

In Utero Exposure to Glucocorticoids and Pubertal Timing in Sons and Daughters

Early pubertal timing has been associated with adult diseases, and identifying preventable causes is of importance. In utero exposure to exogenous glucocorticoids, has been associated with changes in the reproductive hormonal axes in the children, which may influence pubertal timing. Exogenous glucocorticoids can be indicated for diseases such as asthma, allergy, skin diseases, as well as muscle and joint diseases. The aim was to explore the association between in utero exposure to glucocorticoids and pubertal timing in the children. This population-based study was conducted in the Puberty Cohort including 15,819 children, which is a sub-cohort of the Danish National Birth Cohort. Information on maternal glucocorticoid treatment was collected through interviews during pregnancy. Information on pubertal timing was obtained by questionnaires every 6 months throughout puberty, including Tanner Stages, axillary hair, acne, voice break, first ejaculation and menarche. The potential impact of confounding by indication was explored by stratifying on indication and treatment status. Overall, 6.8% of the children were exposed to glucocorticoids in utero. Exposure to glucocorticoids in utero was not associated with earlier puberty for neither boys nor girls with combined estimates of 0.4 months (95% CI: -1.5; 2.2) and -0.7 months (95% CI: -2.5; 1.2).

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

Main objective

To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Secondary objective

To maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

Cancer risk in chronic rhinosinusitis: a propensity score matched case-control cohort study

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) have infection, innate immune disorder and chronic inflammation problems which are considered as potential mechanism of tumorigenesis. To estimate cancer risk in CRS using propensity scores matching (PSM) case-control cohort study.

METHODS

A nationwide retrospective case-control cohort study is conducted on claim data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. From January 2000 to December 2005, case group included 32677 CRS patients (including 544 with surgery in case 1 group and 32133 without surgery in case 2 group), and control group included 98031 subjects without CRS which were matching by PSM method on all baseline characteristics. All subjects were followed up from January 2006 till December 2013, the risk of cancers were calculated during the period. Conditional logistic regression Analysis of Cancer Risk is used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for case, case 1 and case 2 compared with control group. The difference in cancer risk among case, case 1 and case 2 drew the conclusions of this paper.

RESULTS

The risk of cancers in head and neck (adjusted OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.33-1.75), colon (adjusted OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.09-1.39), liver (adjusted OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41), lung (adjusted OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1-1.3), skin (adjusted OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.05-1.79), breast (adjusted OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01-1.36), prostate (adjusted OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.54-2.22) and bladder (adjusted OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17-1.48) were statistical significantly higher in CRS patients than non-CRS group. Compared with CRS patients without surgery, risk of cancers in head and neck, colon, liver, lung, skin, breast, and prostate were higher in CRS patients receiving surgery.

CONCLUSION

Cancer risk in CRS patients is significant high than non-CRS patients, especially in head and neck, breast, lung, bladder, colorectal, liver, prostate, and skin cancers. Surgical interventions in CRS patients could not decrease cancer risk in CRS patients.

What is the most appropriate treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis?

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common, treatable disease that affects approximately 11% of British adults. It places an enormous burden on patients, with significant detriment to their quality of life, and the health service as it consumes vast numbers of both primary and secondary care resources. However, there is considerable variability in treatment strategies and prescribing practices. This review summarises the key recommendations from landmark guidelines in the treatment of CRS and critically appraises the evidence for treatment.

Nanoparticle drug delivery characterization for fluticasone propionate and in vitro testing 1

Glucocorticoids, such as fluticasone propionate (FP), are used for the treatment of inflammation and alleviation of nasal symptoms and allergies, and as an antipruritic. However, both short- and long-term therapeutic use of glucocorticoids can lead to muscle weakness and atrophy. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility of the nanodelivery of FP with poly(dl-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) and tested in vitro function. FP-loaded PLGA nanoparticles were prepared via nanoprecipitation and morphological characteristics were studied via scanning electron microscopy. FP-loaded nanoparticles demonstrated an encapsulation efficiency of 68.6% ± 0.5% with a drug loading capacity of 4.6% ± 0.04%, were 128.8 ± 0.6 nm in diameter with a polydispersity index of 0.07 ± 0.008, and displayed a zeta potential of -19.4 ± 0.7. A sustained in vitro drug release pattern was observed for up to 7 days. The use of fluticasone nanoparticle decreased lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced lactate dehydrogenase release compared with LPS alone in C2C12 treated cells. FP also decreased expression of LPS-induced inflammatory genes in C2C12 treated cells as compared with LPS alone. Taken together, the present study demonstrates in vitro feasibility of PLGA-FP nanoparticle delivery to the skeletal muscle cells, which may be beneficial for treating inflammation.

Clarithromycin and endoscopic sinus surgery for adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps: study protocol for the MACRO randomised controlled trial

Background

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common source of ill health; 11% of UK adults reported CRS symptoms in a worldwide population study. Guidelines are conflicting regarding whether antibiotics should be included in primary medical management, reflecting the lack of evidence in systematic reviews. Insufficient evidence to inform the role of surgery contributes to a fivefold variation in UK intervention rates. The objective of this trial is to establish the comparative effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) or a prolonged course of antibiotics (clarithromycin) in adult patients with CRS in terms of symptomatic improvement and costs to the National Health Service compared with standard medical care (intranasal medication) at 6 months.

Methods/design

A three-arm parallel-group trial will be conducted with patients who remain symptomatic after receiving appropriate medical therapy (either in primary or secondary care). They will be randomised to receive: (1) intranasal medication plus ESS, (2) intranasal medication plus clarithromycin (250 mg) or (3) intranasal medication plus a placebo. Intranasal medication (current standard medical care) is defined as a spray or drops of intranasal corticosteroids and saline irrigations. The primary outcome measure is the SNOT-22 questionnaire, which assesses disease-specific health-related quality of life. The study sample size is 600. Principal analyses will be according to the randomised groups irrespective of compliance. The trial will be conducted in at least 16 secondary or tertiary care centres with an internal pilot at six sites for 6 months.

Discussion

The potential cardiovascular side effects of macrolide antibiotics have been recently highlighted. The effectiveness of antibiotics will be established through this trial, which may help to reduce unnecessary usage and potential morbidity. If ESS is shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective, the trial may encourage earlier intervention. In contrast, if it is shown to be ineffective, then there should be a significant reduction in surgery rates. The trial results will feed into the other components of the MACRO research programme to establish best practice for the management of adults with CRS and design the ideal patient pathway across primary and secondary care.

Trial registration

ISRCTN36962030. Registered on 17 October 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3314-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of patient views and experiences of current management in primary and secondary care

OBJECTIVES

To explore patient views and perspectives of current management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in primary and secondary care.

DESIGN

Semistructured qualitative telephone interviews as part of the MACRO programme (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic RhinOsinusitis).

SETTING

Primary care and secondary care ear, nose and throat outpatient clinics in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five patients consented to in-depth telephone interviews. Transcribed recordings were managed using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

CRS has a significant impact on patients' quality of life, affecting their ability to work effectively, their social interactions and daily living. Patients seek help when symptoms become unmanageable, but can become frustrated with the primary care system with difficulties obtaining an appointment, and lack of continuity of care. Patients perceive that general practitioners can be dismissive of CRS symptoms, and patients often prioritise other concerns when they consult. Health system barriers and poor communication can result in delays in accessing appropriate treatment and referral. Adherence to intranasal steroids is a problem and patients are uncertain about correct technique. Nasal irrigation can be time-consuming and difficult for patients to use. Secondary care consultations can appear rushed, and patients would like specialists to take a more 'holistic' approach to their management. Surgery is often considered a temporary solution, appropriate when medical options have been explored.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are frustrated with the management of their CRS, and poor communication can result in delays in receiving appropriate treatment and timely referral. Patients seek better understanding of their condition and guidance to support treatments decisions in light of uncertainties around the different medical and surgical options. Better coordinated care between general practice and specialist settings and consistency of advice has the potential to increase patient satisfaction and improve outcomes.

Management strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of GP and ENT specialist views of current practice in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To explore general practitioner (GP) and ears, nose and throat (ENT) specialist perspectives of current treatment strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and care pathways through primary and secondary care.

DESIGN

Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews as part of the MACRO programme (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic Rhinosinusitis) SETTING: Primary care and secondary care ENT outpatient clinics in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve GPs and 9 ENT specialists consented to in-depth telephone interviews. Transcribed recordings were managed using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Healthcare professional views of management options and care pathways for CRS.

RESULTS

GPs describe themselves as confident in recognising CRS, with the exception of assessing nasal polyps. In contrast, specialists report common missed diagnoses (eg, allergy; chronic headache) when patients are referred to ENT clinics, and attribute this to the limited ENT training of GPs. Steroid nasal sprays provide the foundation of treatment in primary care, although local prescribing restrictions can affect treatment choice and poor adherence is perceived to be the causes of inadequate symptom control. Symptom severity, poor response to medical treatment and patient pressure drive referral, although there is uncertainty about optimal timing. Treatment decisions in secondary care are based on disease severity, polyp status, prior medical treatment and patient choice, but there is major uncertainty about the place of longer courses of antibiotics and the use of oral steroids. Surgery is regarded as an important treatment option for patients with severe symptoms or with nasal polyps, although timing of surgery remains unclear, and the uncertainty about net long-term benefits of surgery makes balancing of benefits and risks more difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are uncertain about best management of patients with CRS in both primary and secondary care and practice is varied. An integrated care pathway for CRS is needed to improve patient management and timely referral.

Pharmacological Management of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Current and Evolving Treatments

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory sinonasal condition with multiple etiologic factors that is associated with a vast economic cost. Treatment is most frequently pharmacologic and has centered on agents that ameliorate inflammation, decrease bacterial or pathogen load, and facilitate egress of mucus or purulence from the sinonasal cavity. Nasal saline irrigations, topical nasal steroids, certain antibiotics, and systemic steroids have shown some efficacy in the management of CRS. Recently, biologic therapeutics that target specific inflammatory pathways associated with subsets of CRS have been developed and evaluated. Early data evaluating these biologic treatments suggest a potential role in treating a subset of CRS with refractory, poorly controlled disease. Additional studies are necessary to identify which patients would benefit most from biologic therapies and to assess the cost of these therapies compared with the benefit they provide. This review describes the pathophysiology of CRS and summarizes both established and novel biologic pharmacologic treatments.

Topical and systemic antifungal therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This review adds to a series of reviews looking at primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Antifungals have been suggested as a treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic and topical antifungal agents in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, including those with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) and, if possible, AFRS exclusively.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 17 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a two-week follow-up period comparing topical or systemic antifungals with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment, (c) other pharmacological interventions or (d) a different antifungal agent. We did not include post-surgical antifungal use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the significant adverse effects of hepatic toxicity (systemic antifungals). Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse effects of gastrointestinal disturbance (systemic antifungals) and epistaxis, headache or local discomfort (topical antifungals). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (490 adult participants). The presence of nasal polyps on examination was an inclusion criterion in three studies, an exclusion criterion in one study and the remaining studies included a mixed population. No studies specifically investigated the effect of antifungals in patients with AFRS.Topical antifungal treatment versus placebo or no interventionWe included seven studies (437 participants) that used amphotericin B (six studies; 383 participants) and one that used fluconazole (54 participants). Different delivery methods, volumes and concentrations were used.Four studies reported disease-specific health-related quality of life using a range of instruments. We did not meta-analyse the results due to differences in the instruments used, and measurement and reporting methods. At the end of treatment (one to six months) none of the studies reported statistically significant differences between the groups (low-quality evidence - we are uncertain about the result).Two studies reported disease severity using patient-reported symptom scores. Meta-analysis was not possible. At the end of treatment (8 to 13 weeks) one study showed no difference and the second found that patients in the placebo group had less severe symptoms (very low-quality evidence - we are very uncertain about the result).In terms of adverse effects, topical antifungals may lead to more local irritation compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 8.62; 312 participants; 5 studies; low-quality evidence) but little or no difference in epistaxis (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.63; 225 participants; 4 studies, low-quality evidence) or headache (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.63; 195 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies found a difference in generic health-related quality of life (one study) or endoscopic score (five studies) between the treatment groups. Three studies investigated CT scan; two found no difference between the groups and one found a significant decrease in the mean percentage of air space occluded, favouring the antifungal group.Systemic antifungal treatment versus placebo or no treatmentOne study (53 participants) comparing terbinafine tablets against placebo reported that there may be little or no difference between the groups in disease-specific health-related quality of life or disease severity score (both low-quality evidence). Systemic antifungals may lead to more hepatic toxicity events (RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 78.60) but fewer gastrointestinal disturbances (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.36), compared to placebo, although the evidence was of low quality.This study did not find a difference in CT scan score between the groups. Generic health-related quality of life and endoscopic score were not measured.Other comparisonsWe found no studies that compared antifungal agents against other treatments for chronic rhinosinusitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very low quality of the evidence, it is uncertain whether or not the use of topical or systemic antifungals has an impact on patient outcomes in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis compared with placebo or no treatment. Studies including specific subgroups (i.e. AFRS) are lacking.

[Biologics in Rhinology - Forthcoming Personalized Concepts: the Future Starts Today]

Sinunasale Erkrankungen zählen mit zu den häufigsten chronischen Erkrankungen und führen zu einer erheblichen Störung der Lebensqualität, ein komorbides Asthma ist häufig. Trotz leitliniengerechter Therapie ist anzunehmen, dass mind. 20% der Patienten ihre Erkrankungssymptome nicht adäquat kontrollieren können. Neben den etablierten chirurgischen und konservativen Therapieoptionen finden sich nun vielversprechende Therapieansätze, die bspw. mittels therapeutischer Antikörper mechanistisch gezielt in die Pathophysiologie der Erkrankungen eingreifen können. Die Auswahl der geeigneten Patienten durch geeignete Biomarker und die richtige Therapie zum richtigen Stadium der Erkrankung anbieten zu können, ist das Ziel stratifizierter Medizin und eine wichtige Perspektive für die HNO.Chronic diseases of the nose and the paranasal sinuses are most common, frequently associated with bronchial asthma, and result in substantial reduction of quality of life. Despite optimal treatment according to guidelines, approx. 20 % of the patients will report inadequate control of symptoms. Apart from well established surgical and conservative approaches in therapy new therapeutic antibodies are available that aim specifically pathophysiological targets. The optimal allocation of effective therapy for patients using appropriate biomarkers at the most suitable timepoint is the hallmark of stratified medicine and an important perspective in ENT.

Gene and protein expression of CXCR4 in adult and elderly patients with chronic rhinitis, pharyngitis or sinusitis undergoing thermal water nasal inhalations

Background

Chronic rhinitis, pharyngitis and sinusitis are common health problems with a significant impact on public health, and are suspected to be influenced by ageing factors. Nasal inhalation with thermal water may be used to reduce symptoms, inflammation and drug intake. A pre-post clinical study was conducted in 183 consecutive adult and elderly patients with chronic rhinitis, pharyngitis or sinusitis, to evaluate whether thermal water nasal inhalations could improve their symptoms, clinical signs and rhinomanometry measurements, and influence inflammatory biomarkers levels in nasal epithelial cells.

Results

Participants profile revealed that they were aged on average (mean age and SD 60.6 ± 15.2 years, median 65, range 20–86, 86 aged ≤ 65 years (47%), 96 aged > 65 years (53%)) and extremely concerned about wellbeing. Older age was associated with better compliance to inhalation treatment. Total symptom and clinical evaluation scores were significantly ameliorated after treatment (p < 0.001), with no substantial difference according to age, while rhinomanometry results were inconsistent. Persistence of symptom improvement was confirmed at phone follow up 1 year later (n = 74). The training set of 48 inflammatory genes (40 patients) revealed a strong increase of CXCR4 gene expression after nasal inhalations, confirmed both in the validation set (143 patients; 1.2 ± 0.68 vs 3.3 ± 1.2; p < 0.0001) and by evaluation of CXCR4 protein expression (40 patients; 1.0 ± 0.39 vs 2.6 ± 0.66; p < 0.0001). CXCR4 expression was consistently changed in patients with rhinitis, pharyngitis or sinusitis. The increase was smaller in current smokers compared to non-smokers. Results were substantially unchanged when comparing aged subjects (≥ 65 years) or the eldest quartile (≥ 71 years) to the others. Other genes showed weaker variations (e.g. FLT1 was reduced only in patients with sinusitis).

Conclusions

These results confirm the clinical impact of thermal water nasal inhalations on upper respiratory diseases both in adults and elders, and emphasize the role of genes activating tissue repair and inflammatory pathways. Future studies should evaluate CXCR4 as possible therapeutic target or response predictor in patients with chronic rhinitis, pharyngitis or sinusitis.

Trial registration

Communication to Italian Ministry of Health - ICPOM 000461. Registered 10/11/2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12979-018-0114-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis in Rhinosinusitis: a Critical Review of the Reviews

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been an explosion in the number of published systematic reviews on chronic rhinosinusitis in the last decade.

RECENT FINDINGS

While the aim of these reviews in facilitating evidence-based practice is laudable, poor quality reviews may contain significant bias that can mislead a non-discerning reader. Attention therefore must be given to review methodology before implanting findings. Organisations such as the Cochrane Collaboration promote high-quality reviews, but are limited in chronic sinus disease by heterogeneous outcomes and a paucity of randomised trials.

Contemporary Use of Corticosteroids in Rhinology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Exogenously administered corticosteroids are widely used today in the field of rhinology. Allergic rhinitis (AR), non-allergic rhinitis (NAR), acute rhinosinusitis (ARS), chronic rhinosinusitis with (CRSwNP) and without (CRSsNP) nasal polyps, and autoimmune disorders with nasal manifestations are common diseases treated effectively with intranasal and oral glucocorticoids. We focus on physiological pathways, therapeutic benefits, indications, contra-indications, and side effects of glucocorticoid utilization in the treatment of rhinologic disorders such as AR, NAR, ARS, CRSsNP, and CRSwNP.

RECENT FINDINGS

Second-generation intranasal steroid (INS) agents have pharmacokinetic characteristics that minimize their systemic bioavailability, resulting in minimum risk for systemic adverse events. Several studies have demonstrated the symptomatic efficacy of both intranasal and oral corticosteroids in ARS. Moreover, intranasal and systemic steroid administration has been repeatedly proven beneficial in the conservative and perioperative management of CRSwNP. For patients with AR, there is no need for oral steroids, with the exception of severe cases, as there is lack of superiority to INS. SCUAD patients challenge currently available treatment schemes, underlining the importance of research in the field. Corticosteroids' effectiveness in the treatment of various rhinologic disorders is indisputable. However, their characteristics, and potential side effects, make a clear consensus for utilization difficult.

Developing a core outcome set for chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review of outcomes utilised in the current literature

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported by all trials for a specific clinical area, in this case chronic rhinosinusitis. These are not restrictive and researchers may continue to explore other outcomes alongside these that they feel are relevant to their intervention. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the need for a COS for chronic rhinosinusitis.

METHODS

A sensitive search strategy was used to identify all published Cochrane systematic reviews and randomised control trials of intervention for adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Two independent authors reviewed these to obtain a list of outcomes and outcome measures reported by each clinical trial.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine randomised control trials and eight Cochrane systematic reviews were included in this study. They reported 68 individual outcomes and outcome measures, with an average of four to ten outcomes per clinical trial. These outcomes were mapped to 23 subcategories belonging to eight core categories.

CONCLUSIONS

The key finding of this review was the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and measured by clinical trials of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, precluding meaningful meta-analysis of data. This review supports the need for development of a COS, to be used in future trials on adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

[The use of intranasal glucocorticosteroids in the treatment of rhinosinusitis: Focus on mometasone furoate]

The authors discuss the mechanism of action, effectiveness, and safety of intranasal glucocorticosteroids (inGCS) used to treat acute, recurrent and chronic rhinosinusitis (RS). The last version of the European guidelines concerning the application of inGCS assigns the highest level of evidence-Ia and the highest strength of recommendations-A to these medications when applied for the treatment of acute and polypoid rhinosinusitis. Moreover, they acquire the status of the agents of choice for the therapy of chronic RS without polyps. Mometasone furoate is one of the best explored preparations of this group of medicines. It is possessed of favourable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties when prescribed for local application. The new mometasone furoate preparation in the form of an intranasal spray Dezrinit produced by "Teva" Ltd. was registered in the Russian Federation. In a comparative randomized clinical trial (RCT), the preparation was shown to be an equivalent to the Nasonex spray.

Saline irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Nasal saline irrigation is commonly used to improve patient symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of saline irrigation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 30 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing saline delivered to the nose by any means (douche, irrigation, drops, spray or nebuliser) with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation and discomfort. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs (116 adult participants). One compared large-volume (150 ml) hypertonic (2%) saline irrigation with usual treatment over a six-month period; the other compared 5 ml nebulised saline twice a day with intranasal corticosteroids, treating participants for three months and evaluating them on completion of treatment and three months later. Large-volume, hypertonic nasal saline versus usual care One trial included 76 adult participants (52 intervention, 24 control) with or without polyps.Disease-specific HRQL was reported using the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI; 0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). At the end of three months of treatment, patients in the saline group were better than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 6.3 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 11.71) and at six months there was a greater effect (MD 13.5 points, 95% CI 9.63 to 17.37). We assessed the evidence to be of low quality for the three months follow-up and very low quality for the six months follow-up. Patient-reported disease severity was evaluated using a "single-item sinus symptom severity assessment" but the range of scores is not stated, making it impossible for us to determine the meaning of the data presented.No adverse effects data were collected in the control group but 23% of participants in the saline group experienced side effects including epistaxis. General HRQL was measured using SF-12 (0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). No difference was found after three months of treatment (low quality evidence) but at six months there was a small difference favouring the saline group, which may not be of clinical significance and has high uncertainty (MD 10.5 points, 95% CI 0.66 to 20.34) (very low quality evidence). Low-volume, nebulised saline versus intranasal corticosteroids One trial included 40 adult participants with polyps. Our primary outcome of disease-specific HRQL was not reported. At the end of treatment (three months) the patients who had intranasal corticosteroids had less severe symptoms (MD -13.50, 95% CI -14.44 to -12.56); this corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be of very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The two studies were very different in terms of included populations, interventions and comparisons and so it is therefore difficult to draw conclusions for practice. The evidence suggests that there is no benefit of a low-volume (5 ml) nebulised saline spray over intranasal steroids. There is some benefit of daily, large-volume (150 ml) saline irrigation with a hypertonic solution when compared with placebo, but the quality of the evidence is low for three months and very low for six months of treatment.

Short-course oral steroids alone for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a suite of six Cochrane reviews looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common condition involving inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses. It is characterised by nasal blockage and nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Oral corticosteroids are used to control the inflammatory response and improve symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral corticosteroids compared with placebo/no intervention or other pharmacological interventions (intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics, antifungals) for chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a short course (up to 21 days) of oral corticosteroids with placebo or no treatment or compared with other pharmacological interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity, and the adverse event of mood or behavioural disturbances. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of insomnia, gastrointestinal disturbances and osteoporosis. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs (474 randomised participants), which compared oral corticosteroids with placebo or no intervention. All trials only recruited adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. All trials reported outcomes at two to three weeks, at the end of the short-course oral steroid treatment period. Three trials additionally reported outcomes at three to six months. Two of these studies prescribed intranasal steroids to patients in both arms of the trial at the end of the oral steroid treatment period. Oral steroids versus placebo or no intervention Disease-specific health-related quality of life was reported by one study. This study reported improved quality of life after treatment (two to three weeks) in the group receiving oral steroids compared with the group who received placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.92 to -0.56, 40 participants, modified RSOM-31), which corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be low quality (we are uncertain about the effect estimate; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect). Disease severity as measured by patient-reported symptom scores was reported by two studies, which allowed the four key symptoms used to define chronic rhinosinusitis (nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure, hyposmia) to be combined into one score. The results at the end of treatment (two to three weeks) showed an improvement in patients receiving oral steroids compared to placebo, both when presented as a mean final value (SMD -2.84, 95% CI -4.09 to -1.59, 22 participants) and as a change from baseline (SMD -2.28, 95% CI -2.76 to -1.80, 114 participants). These correspond to large effect sizes but we assessed the evidence to be low quality.One study (114 participants) followed patients for 10 weeks after the two-week treatment period. All patients in both arms received intranasal steroids at the end of the oral steroid treatment period. The results showed that the initial results after treatment were not sustained (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.15, 114 participants, percentage improvement from baseline). This corresponds to a small effect size and we assessed the evidence to be low quality.There was an increase in adverse events in people receiving orals steroids compared with placebo for gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 3.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 10.78; 187 participants; three studies) and insomnia (RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.10 to 11.95; 187 participants; three studies). There was no significant impact of oral steroids on mood disturbances at the dosage used in the included study (risk ratio (RR) 2.50, 95% CI 0.55 to 11.41; 40 participants; one study). We assessed the evidence to be low quality due to the lack of definitions of the adverse events and the small number of events or sample size, or both). Other comparisons No studies that compared short-course oral steroids with other treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the end of the treatment course (two to three weeks) there is an improvement in health-related quality of life and symptom severity in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps taking oral corticosteroids compared with placebo or no treatment. The quality of the evidence supporting this finding is low. At three to six months after the end of the oral steroid treatment period, there is little or no improvement in health-related quality of life or symptom severity for patients taking an initial course of oral steroids compared with placebo or no treatment.The data on the adverse effects associated with short courses of oral corticosteroids indicate that there may be an increase in insomnia and gastrointestinal disturbances but it is not clear whether there is an increase in mood disturbances. All of the adverse events results are based on low quality evidence.More research in this area, particularly research evaluating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.There is no evidence for oral steroids compared with other treatments.

Intranasal steroids versus placebo or no intervention for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. The use of topical (intranasal) corticosteroids has been widely advocated for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis given the belief that inflammation is a major component of this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intranasal corticosteroids in people with chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, flunisolide, budesonide) against placebo or no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation or other systemic adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs with a total of 2738 participants. Fourteen studies had participants with nasal polyps and four studies had participants without nasal polyps. Only one study was conducted in children. Intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention Only one study (20 adult participants without polyps) measured our primary outcome disease-specific HRQL using the Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measures-31 (RSOM-31). They reported no significant difference (numerical data not available) (very low quality evidence).Our second primary outcome, disease severity , was measured using the Chronic Sinusitis Survey in a second study (134 participants without polyps), which found no important difference (mean difference (MD) 2.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.02 to 10.70; scale 0 to 100). Another study (chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps) reported an increased chance of improvement in the intranasal corticosteroids group (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.40; 109 participants). The quality of the evidence was low.Six studies provided data on at least two of the individual symptoms used in the EPOS 2012 criteria to define chronic rhinosinusitis (nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, loss of sense of smell and facial pain/pressure). When all four symptoms in the EPOS criteria were available on a scale of 0 to 3 (higher = more severe symptoms), the average MD in change from baseline was -0.26 (95% CI -0.37 to -0.15; 243 participants; two studies; low quality evidence). Although there were more studies and participants when only nasal blockage and rhinorrhoea were considered (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.24; 1702 participants; six studies), the MD was almost identical to when loss of sense of smell was also considered (1345 participants, four studies; moderate quality evidence).When considering the results for the individual symptoms, benefit was shown in the intranasal corticosteroids group. The effect size was larger for nasal blockage (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.29; 1702 participants; six studies) than for rhinorrhoea (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.17; 1702 participants; six studies) or loss of sense of smell (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.11; 1345 participants; four studies). There was heterogeneity in the analysis for facial pain/pressure (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.02; 243 participants; two studies). The quality of the evidence was moderate for nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea and loss of sense of smell, but low for facial pain/pressure.There was an increased risk of epistaxis with intranasal corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.00; 2508 participants; 13 studies; high quality evidence).Considering our secondary outcome, general HRQL, one study (134 participants without polyps) measured this using the SF-36 and reported a statistically significant benefit only on the general health subscale. The quality of the evidence was very low.It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of local irritation (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.64; 2124 participants; 11 studies) (low quality evidence).None of the studies treated or followed up patients long enough to provide meaningful data on the risk of osteoporosis or stunted growth (children). Other comparisons We identified no other studies that compared intranasal corticosteroids plus co-intervention A versus placebo plus co-intervention A.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the evidence available was from studies in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. There is little information about quality of life (very low quality evidence). For disease severity, there seems to be improvement for all symptoms (low quality evidence), a moderate-sized benefit for nasal blockage and a small benefit for rhinorrhoea (moderate quality evidence). The risk of epistaxis is increased (high quality evidence), but these data included all levels of severity; small streaks of blood may not be a major concern for patients. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of local irritation (low quality evidence).

Systemic and topical antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Systemic and topical antibiotics are used with the aim of eliminating infection in the short term (and some to reduce inflammation in the long term), in order to normalise nasal mucus and improve symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics in people with chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 29 September 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing systemic or topical antibiotic treatment to (a) placebo or (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - gastrointestinal disturbance. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) and anaphylaxis or other very serious reactions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs (293 participants), all of which compared systemic antibiotics with placebo or another pharmacological intervention.The varying study characteristics made comparison difficult. Four studies recruited only adults and one only children. Three used macrolide, one tetracycline and one a cephalosporin-type antibiotic. Three recruited only patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, one recruited patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and one had a mixed population. Three followed up patients for 10 to 12 weeks after treatment had finished. Systemic antibiotics versus placebo Three studies compared antibiotics with placebo (176 participants).One study (64 participants, without polyps) reported disease-specific HRQL using the SNOT-20 (0 to 5, 0 = best quality of life). At the end of treatment (three months) the SNOT-20 score was lower in the group receiving macrolide antibiotics than the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -0.54 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98 to -0.10), corresponding to a moderate effect size favouring antibiotics (moderate quality evidence). Three months after treatment, it is uncertain if there was a difference between groups.One study (33 participants, with polyps) provided information on gastrointestinal disturbances and suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) after a short course of tetracycline antibiotic compared with placebo. We are very uncertain if antibiotics were associated with an increase in gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.50) or skin irritation (RR 6.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 128.86) (very low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids One study (60 participants, some with and some without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with placebo; all participants also used saline irrigation and 70% used intranasal corticosteroids. Disease-specific HRQL was reported using SNOT-22 (0 to 110, 0 = best quality of life). Data were difficult to interpret (highly skewed and baseline imbalances) and it is unclear if there was an important difference at any time point (low quality evidence). To assess patient-reported disease severity participants rated the effect of treatment on a five-point scale (-2 for "desperately worse" to 2 for "cured") at the end of treatment (three months). For improvement in symptoms there was no difference between the antibiotics and placebo groups; the RR was 1.50 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.79; very low quality evidence), although there were also slightly more people who felt worse after treatment in the antibiotics group. There was no demonstrable difference in the rate of gastrointestinal disturbances between the groups (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.10). General HRQL was measured using the SF-36. The authors stated that there was no difference between groups at the end of treatment (12 weeks) or two weeks later. Systemic antibiotics versus intranasal corticosteroids One study (43 participants, without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with intranasal corticosteroids. Patient-reported disease severity was assessed using a composite symptom score (0 to 40; 0 = no symptoms). It is very uncertain if there was a difference as patient-reported disease severity was similar between groups (MD -0.32, 95% CI -2.11 to 1.47; low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics versus oral corticosteroids One study (28 participants, with polyps) compared a short course of tetracycline antibiotic (unclear duration, ˜20 days) with a 20-day course of oral corticosteroids. We were unable to extract data on any of the primary efficacy outcomes. It is uncertain if there was a difference ingastrointestinal disturbances (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.14) or skin irritation (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.62) as the results for these outcomes were similar between groups (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very little evidence that systemic antibiotics are effective in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. We did find moderate quality evidence of a modest improvement in disease-specific quality of life in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps receiving three months of a macrolide antibiotic. The size of improvement was moderate (0.5 points on a five-point scale) and only seen at the end of the three-month treatment; by three months later no difference was found.Despite a general understanding that antibiotics can be associated with adverse effects, including gastrointestinal disturbances, the results in this review were very uncertain because the studies were small and few events were reported.No RCTs of topical antibiotics met the inclusion criteria.More research in this area, particularly evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.

Short-course oral steroids as an adjunct therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a suite of six Cochrane reviews looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common condition involving inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses. It is characterised by nasal blockage and nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Oral corticosteroids are used to control the inflammatory response and improve symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a short course of oral corticosteroids as an adjunct ('add-on') therapy in people with chronic rhinosinusitis who are already on standard treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a short course (up to 21 days) of oral corticosteroids to placebo or no treatment, where all patients were also receiving pharmacological treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity, and the adverse event of mood or behavioural disturbances. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score, and the adverse events of insomnia, gastrointestinal disturbances and osteoporosis. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials with a total of 78 participants met the inclusion criteria. Both the populations and the 'standard' treatments differed in the two studies. Oral steroids as an adjunct to intranasal corticosteroids One trial in adults with nasal polyps included 30 participants. All participants used intranasal corticosteroids and were randomised to either short-course oral steroids (oral methylprednisolone, 1 mg/kg and reduced progressively over a 21-day treatment course) or no additional treatment. None of the primary outcome measures of interest in this review were reported by the study. There may have been an important reduction in the size of the polyps (measured by the nasal polyps score, a secondary outcome measure) in patients receiving oral steroids and intranasal corticosteroids, compared to intranasal corticosteroids alone (mean difference (MD) -0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to -0.05; 30 participants; scale 1 to 4) at the end of treatment (21 days). This corresponds to a large effect size, but we are very uncertain about this estimate as we judged the study to be at high risk of bias. Moreover, longer-term data were not available and the other outcomes of interest were not reported. Oral steroids as an adjunct to antibiotics One trial in children (mean age of eight years) without nasal polyps included 48 participants. The trial compared oral corticosteroids (oral methylprednisolone, 1 mg/kg and reduced progressively over a 15-day treatment course) with placebo in participants who also received a 30-day course of antibiotics. This study addressed one of the primary outcome measures (disease severity) and one secondary outcome (CT score). For disease severity the four key symptoms used to define chronic rhinosinusitis in children (nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure, cough) were combined into one score. There was a greater improvement in symptom severity 30 days after the start of treatment in patients who received oral steroids and antibiotics compared with placebo and antibiotics (MD -7.10, 95% CI -9.59 to -4.61; 45 participants; scale 0 to 40). The observed mean difference corresponds to a large effect size. At the same time point there was a difference in CT scan score (MD -2.90, 95% CI -4.91 to -0.89; 45 participants; scale 0 to 24). We assessed the quality of the evidence to be low.There were no data available for the longer term (three months).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There might be an improvement in symptom severity, polyps size and condition of the sinuses when assessed using CT scans in patients taking oral corticosteroids when these are used as an adjunct therapy to antibiotics or intranasal corticosteroids, but the quality of the evidence supporting this is low or very low (we are uncertain about the effect estimate; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect). It is unclear whether the benefits of oral corticosteroids as an adjunct therapy are sustained beyond the short follow-up period reported (up to 30 days), as no longer-term data were available.There were no data in this review about the adverse effects associated with short courses of oral corticosteroids as an adjunct therapy.More research in this area, particularly research evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.

WITHDRAWN: Topical steroid for chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps

Review withdrawn from Issue 4, 2016. Replaced by new reviews 'Intranasal steroids versus placebo or no intervention for chronic rhinosinusitis' (Chong 2016a) and 'Different types of intranasal steroids for chronic rhinosinusitis' (Chong 2016b).

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.