Topical and systemic antifungal therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis

AWMF mold guideline "Medical clinical diagnostics for indoor mold exposure" - Update 2023 AWMF Register No. 161/001

None.

A large-volume low-pressure nasal irrigation delivers drug into the nasal cavity? An in vivo study

The nasal administration route emerged as an interesting route in systemic and brain drug delivery, and different modalities of nasal delivery are available. The nasal irrigation is one of them, but there is a lack of studies investigating the distribution of a large-volume irrigation. The main aim of this study was to assess the deposition of radiolabeled saline in the nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses following nasal irrigation by imaging. Five healthy males volunteered to perform large-volume low-pressure nasal irrigation, with a douching device containing 50 mL of radiolabeled isotonic saline. Participants underwent a scintigraphy immediately after. Both the nasal cavities and maxillary sinuses were systematically reached by the solution during nasal irrigation. The sinuses set in a lower position during nasal irrigation showed a tendency to be more irrigated than the sinuses set in a higher position (7.67% vs 22.72%; p = 0.086). Moreover, substantial inter- and intraindividual heterogeneity regarding solution deposition was observed. Large-volume low-pressure nasal irrigation is a good modality to reach the maxillary sinuses as well as the nasal cavities. In order to ensure adequate reaching of both nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses, nasal irrigation should be performed bilaterally.

Prolonged Itraconazole Therapy as Sole Treatment for Patients with Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Currently, the mainstay of treatment for allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is surgical debridement along with topical or systemic steroids. However, prolonged systemic steroid therapy comes with side effects and is also sometimes contraindicated. Systemic antifungals have been used earlier as an adjunct to steroids or in refractory cases, but they have not been used as the sole primary treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness of sole Itraconazole therapy in patients with AFRS by comparison of clinical, radiological, and biochemical parameters before and after treatment.

METHODS

Thirty-four patients diagnosed with localized sino-nasal AFRS were recruited and started on the tablet Itraconazole 200 mg orally twice daily for 3 months with q2weekly monitoring of liver function tests. The baseline clinical, radiological, and biochemical parameters were then compared with those after completion of 3 months of Itraconazole therapy.

RESULTS

There was significant difference between all the parameters-clinical: SNOT-22 score (p < 0.001) and Meltzer endoscopy score (p < 0.001), radiological: Lund-Mackay score (p = 0.004) and 20-point CT score (p = 0.002), and biochemical: serum total IgE (p < 0.001), Aspergillus-specific IgE (p < 0.001), and absolute eosinophil count (p < 0.001). The clearance of the disease was more in anterior sinuses than the posterior ones.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged Itraconazole can be given as sole therapy in AFRS, especially in patients for whom steroids are contraindicated or in those who are awaiting surgery. It can result in symptomatic and radiological improvement, but surgery still remains the definitive treatment option for AFRS for complete clearance of disease.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:545-551, 2024.

Allergic Fungal Otomastoiditis: A Case Report

Otomastoiditis caused by an allergic reaction to fungi in the middle ear is rare, with only four cases reported in the English literature. We report the case of a patient with allergic fungal otomastoiditis. A 28-year-old man presented with otalgia, hearing loss, and vertigo. Exploratory tympanotomy revealed mucin with a peanut butter-like consistency and containing eosinophils and Candida parapsilosis, but no evidence of direct tissue invasion by fungi. The patient was treated with a combination of surgery and medication. Subtotal petrosectomy was finally performed to remove the middle ear mucosa and separate the middle ear from the external environment. Short-term prednisolone and long-term fluconazole were administered without satisfactory therapeutic results. The inflammatory condition has improved but continues without complete remission. Allergic fungal otomastoiditis is an extremely rare condition that may share pathophysiological features with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, so a thorough examination combining bacterial cultures, histopathological examination with fungal staining, and serum antigen-specific immunoglobulin E against multiple fungi is essential. Optimal treatment probably comprises appropriate surgery and long-term administration of systemic corticosteroids. Definitive diagnostic criteria and therapeutic strategies need to be established, based on the accumulation of similar cases.

Conventional Antifungals for Invasive Infections Delivered by Unconventional Methods; Aerosols, Irrigants, Directed Injections and Impregnated Cement

The administration of approved antifungals via unapproved formulations or administration routes (such as aerosol, direct injection, irrigation, topical formulation and antifungal-impregnated orthopedic beads or cement) may be resorted to in an attempt to optimize drug exposure while minimizing toxicities and/or drug interactions associated with conventional (systemic) administrations. Existing data regarding such administrations are mostly restricted to uncontrolled case reports of patients with diseases refractory to conventional therapies. Attribution of efficacy and tolerability is most often problematic. This review updates prior published summaries, reflecting the most recent data and its application by available prevention and treatment guidelines for invasive fungal infections. Of the various dosage forms and antifungals, perhaps none is more widely reported than the application of amphotericin B-containing aerosols for the prevention of invasive mold infections (notably Aspergillus spp.).

Precision Medicine in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Where Does Allergy Fit In?

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a clinical syndrome stemming from persistent inflammation of the sinonasal mucosa. Phenotypically, it is traditionally and widely described according to the presence or absence of polyps. While this distinction is simple to use, it has little bearing on prognosis and treatment, for CRS is essentially an inflammatory disease resulting from dysregulated interaction between a multitude of host and environmental factors. Allergy is merely one of them and, like many of the proposed aetiologies, has been subject to much debate which will be discussed here. As our understanding of CRS continues to evolve, previous so-called conventional wisdom about phenotypes (e.g. CRS with nasal polyps is associated with Type 2 inflammation) is being challenged, and new phenotypes are also emerging. In addition, there is growing interest in defining the endotypes of CRS to deliver precise and personalised treatment, especially pertaining to the development of biologics for the group of severe, difficult-to-treat CRS patients. A proposed model of precision medicine tailored to management of CRS will also be introduced to readers, which can be continually modified to adapt to new discoveries about this exciting condition.

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.

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.

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.

Airway mycosis in allergic airway disease

The allergic airway diseases, including chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), asthma, allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis (ABPM) and many others, comprise a heterogeneous collection of inflammatory disorders affecting the upper and lower airways and lung parenchyma that represent the most common chronic diseases of humanity. In addition to their shared tissue tropism, the allergic airway diseases are characterized by a distinct pattern of inflammation involving the accumulation of eosinophils, type 2 macrophages, innate lymphoid cells type 2 (ILC2), IgE-secreting B cells, and T helper type 2 (Th2) cells in airway tissues, and the prominent production of type 2 cytokines including interleukin (IL-) 33, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and many others. These factors and related inflammatory molecules induce characteristic remodeling and other changes of the airways that include goblet cell metaplasia, enhanced mucus secretion, smooth muscle hypertrophy, tissue swelling and polyp formation that account for the major clinical manifestations of nasal obstruction, headache, hyposmia, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, wheezing, and, in the most severe cases of lower airway disease, death due to respiratory failure or disseminated, systemic disease. The syndromic nature of the allergic airway diseases that now include many physiological variants or endotypes suggests that distinct endogenous or environmental factors underlie their expression. However, findings from different perspectives now collectively link these disorders to a single infectious source, the fungi, and a molecular pathogenesis that involves the local production of airway proteinases by these organisms. In this review, we discuss the evidence linking fungi and their proteinases to the surprisingly wide variety of chronic airway and systemic disorders and the immune pathogenesis of these conditions as they relate to environmental fungi. We further discuss the important implications these new findings have for the diagnosis and future therapy of these common conditions.