A prospective randomized cohort study evaluating 3 weeks vs 6 weeks of oral antibiotic treatment in the setting of “maximal medical therapy” for chronic rhinosinusitis

Is there a role for antibiotics in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis?

Rhinosinusitis is one of the most common reasons for adult outpatient antibiotic prescriptions, though there is little clinical evidence to support this practice, especially for chronic rhinosinusitis. Despite considerable research, the etiology of chronic rhinosinusitis, including the pathogenic role of microbes, remains poorly understood. Rigorous studies of the efficacy of antibiotic treatment of chronic sinusitis are surprisingly few in number and the results are somewhat conflicting. This review article will review the rationales for and against the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with antibiotics, based on current evidence and understanding of pathophysiology, and will also summarize the current guidelines.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document.

METHODS

ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary.

RESULTS

ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided.

CONCLUSION

This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.

The Triple Aim and its implications on the management of chronic rhinosinusitis

INTRODUCTION

Accountable care organizations (ACO) and alternative payment models are a sign of the change in reimbursement from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement. The focus of health care under ACOs is represented by the Triple Aim: to improve the experience of health care, improve the health of populations, and reduce the per capita costs. Individuals with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) are heavy consumers of health care services. Results of recent studies have indicated that there is the potential for improved outcomes and cost savings from early surgical intervention. Adhering to the principles of the Triple Aim may signal a paradigm shift in regard to timing of intervention for CRS in certain patients.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed to analyze the current literature related to management of CRS and the impact on cost, population health outcomes, and the patient's experience of health care.

RESULTS

A growing body of literature indicates that, in appropriately selected patients, when compared with medical management, endoscopic sinus surgery has the potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce the long-term cost burden of CRS.

CONCLUSION

With the advent of ACOs, a paradigm shift in the treatment of CRS is inevitable to better conform to the goals of the Triple Aim. Future treatment algorithms will need to account for the heterogeneity within CRS and seek to identify appropriate timing and interventions for patients on an individual basis if the value of health care is to be improved.

The impact of total immunoglobulin E levels on outcomes of maximal medical therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this project was to evaluate the impact of immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels on outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) who received maximal medical therapy (MMT).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients who underwent MMT for CRS were assigned to three different cohorts based on their IgE levels: low IgE (<25 IU), moderate (>25 to <149 IU), and high (≥150 IU). The primary outcome evaluated was MMT failure with a surgical recommendation within each IgE cohort. Secondary outcomes included changes in pre- and post-MMT scores for the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index, Chronic Sinusitis Survey, and computed tomography-based Lund-Mackay evaluation. The cohorts were substratified based on the presence of nasal polyps and nasal allergies.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found when MMT failure was compared between the cohorts in terms of quality of life. When substratified based on the presence of nasal polyps and nasal allergies, there was no significant difference between the cohorts. In the high-IgE cohort, all patients regardless of presence of nasal polyps and nasal allergic disease, frequently failed MMT and were recommended for surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, IgE levels did not seem to have a significant effect on the quality of life or outcomes of MMT in the patients with CRS. However, the presence of nasal allergies regardless of IgE levels seemed to result in more frequent recommendations for surgery after MMT. In the patients with higher-IgE levels (≥150 IU), MMT seemed to fail at high rates with or without the presence of polyps or allergic disease.

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

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

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.