SNOT-22 score patterns strongly negatively predict chronic rhinosinusitis in patients with headache

Headache and Facial Pain/Pressure in the Chronic Rhinosinusitis Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the severity and prevalence of headache and facial pain/pressurere in the chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) population.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus.

REVIEW METHODS

The literature was searched from inception through June 2023 for English language articles documenting "headache" or "facial pain/pressure" and "chronic rhinosinusitis." Data collected included Lund-MacKay computed tomography score, Lund-Kennedy endoscopy score, sinonasal outcome test, and visual analog scale. Meta-analyses were performed on continuous measures (mean), proportions (%), and regression.

RESULTS

A total of 69 studies were included with 8643 CRS patients and 703 control patients. The CRS group had a mean age of 44.1 (range: 16-82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.3-48) and 86.1% [95% CI: 76.4-93.5] with nasal polyposis. The control group had a mean age of 39.2 (range: 17-88; 95% CI: 28.7-49.8). All CRS subgroups had significantly more severe headache and facial pain/pressure when compared to the control (P < .0001). Patients without polyps had significantly more severe facial pain/pressure and headache when compared to patients with polyps (P < .0001). Facial pain/pressure is a moderate problem or worse in 29.8% of polypoid patients versus 56.4% of nonpolypoid patients; Δ26.6% [95% CI: 0.7-50; P = .045].

CONCLUSIONS

Across all outcome metrics, CRS patients experience significantly more severe headache and facial pain/pressure when compared to a control population. Nonpolypoid patients experience significantly more severe facial pain/pressure and headache when compared to polypoid patients. The majority of nonpolypoid patients experience facial pain/pressure that is moderate in severity or worse.

Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT22) score in adult population with no known sino-nasal disease

PURPOSE

This cross-sectional study aimed to establish normative values for Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) score in adult Indian population without known sino-nasal diseases. The purpose was to fill a critical knowledge gap, providing insights into how various host factors influence SNOT-22 scores which seek to serve as reference for clinical studies, facilitating comparisons of symptom severity and aid in patient counselling based on specific score patterns.

METHODS

One thousand and twelve adults meeting inclusion criteria participated in the study. Participants provided demographic information, occupation details, addiction history, and medical background. They completed SNOT-22 questionnaire, grading their symptoms on Likert scale of 0-5 based on severity experienced in the past 2 weeks. The collected data were analysed to derive meaningful insights.

RESULTS

Mean SNOT-22 score for the study population was 6.80, with 90% scoring below 15, and 40% within 0-3 range. Females exhibited significantly lower mean scores than males. Residents of rural areas reported higher scores than urban counterparts. Education levels had no significant influence on scores. Occupational exposure to aeroallergens, addiction (especially tobacco), and a history of allergies, bronchial asthma, or atopy were associated with significantly higher SNOT-22 scores. Principal component analysis identified four distinct domains, with the nasal symptom domain consistently emerging as the major contributor to differences in subgroups with significantly different total SNOT-22 scores.

CONCLUSION

The normative data and subgroup analyses established in this study serve as a foundation for future research, aiding clinicians in predicting symptoms and providing tailored counselling for individuals with sino-nasal pathologies.

Development of the 12-Item Facial Complaints Evaluation Scale (FaCES-12)

OBJECTIVES

Chronic rhinosinusitis and related rhinologic disorders are common in routine otolaryngologic practice. Common presenting symptoms include nasal obstruction, facial pain, facial pressure, headache, and a subjective feeling of the face feeling "swollen," a perceptual distortion. No validated scale exists to assess facial pain in addition to perceptual distortion or headache. The objective was to develop a novel scale for assessment of facial symptoms experienced by patients presenting for rhinologic evaluation.

METHODS

This was a prospective validation cross-sectional study. A patient questionnaire, the 12-item Facial Complaints Evaluation Scale (FaCES-12), was created to evaluate facial symptoms based on clinical experience and the literature, including severity and timing of facial pain, facial pressure, facial perceptual swelling, and headache. Each item was assessed utilizing an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10 in severity. Data was collected prospectively from 210 patients in 1 private and 2 academic otolaryngologic practices from August to December 2019 along with the PROMIS Pain Intensity Scale 3a and 22-Item Sino-nasal Outcome Test. Construct validity was determined using Pearson correlation and exploratory factor analysis. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha and assessing test-retest scores.

RESULTS

A new 12-item scale named FaCES-12 was developed. FaCES-12 demonstrated high reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of .94 and high test-retest reliability (r = .90). The scale revealed very strong correlation with the PROMIS Pain Intensity Scale 3a (r = .81) and moderate correlation with the Sino-nasal Outcome Test (r = .48). Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated the scale contained interrelated variables that measured unique components of facial sensations.

CONCLUSION

The FaCES-12 is a valid and reliable instrument for use in the evaluation of facial symptoms. Further research into the application of this scale is warranted.

The Burden of Migraine on Quality of Life in Chronic Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of comorbid migraine on quality of life (QOL) in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

METHODS

A total of 213 adult patients with CRS were recruited. All participants completed the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), from which total and validated nasal, ear/facial pain, sleep, and emotional subdomain scores were calculated, and the 5-dimension EuroQol general health questionnaire (EQ-5D), from which the visual analogue scale (VAS) and health utility value (HUV) were calculated. The presence of comorbid migraine was determined by a score of ≥4 on the 5-item Migraine Screen Questionnaire (MS-Q).

RESULTS

Of the participants, 36.2% were screened positive for having comorbid migraine. The mean SNOT-22 score was 64.9 (SD: 18.7) in participants with migraine and 41.5 (SD: 21.1) in participants without migraine (p < 0.001). The mean EQ-5D VAS and HUV were 60.2 (SD: 21.9) and 0.69 (SD: 0.18), respectively, in participants with migraine and 71.4 (SD: 19.4) and 0.84 (SD: 0.13), respectively, in participants without migraine (p < 0.001 for both). Higher ear/facial pain (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.10-1.36, p < 0.001) and sleep (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.04-1.18, p = 0.002) SNOT-22 subdomain scores were positively associated with migraine. The SNOT-22 item scores related to dizziness, reduced concentration, and facial pain, in descending order, were most associated with migraine. The presence of nasal polyps (OR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.07 - 0.80, p = 0.020) was negatively associated with migraine.

CONCLUSION

Comorbid migraine may be relatively common amongst CRS patients, and its presence is associated with significantly worse QOL. Dizziness as a symptom in CRS patients may be particularly indicative of migraine.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 133:3279-3284, 2023.

Individual SNOT-22 Items Aid in Differentiating Between Spontaneous Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea and Chronic Rhinosinusitis Without Nasal Polyps

OBJECTIVES

Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea is a diagnostic challenge due to its overlapping symptomatology with other sinonasal diseases. The objective of this study was to investigate whether items on the sinonasal outcome test (SNOT)-22 could suggest a diagnosis of spontaneous CSF rhinorrhea versus chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsNP).

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective chart review of patients with spontaneous CSF rhinorrhea and a control group of CRSsNP patients was performed. Individual SNOT-22 scores and domain scores were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients were included in both cohorts. Of the patients in the CSF rhinorrhea group, 48% were misdiagnosed as chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) prior to the correct identification of a CSF leak. On bivariate analysis, the CSF rhinorrhea group scored significantly higher on the SNOT-22 for runny nose (P < .001) and was more likely to designate this symptom as most important (P < .001). The CRSsNP group scored significantly higher in nasal blockage (P < .001), thick nasal discharge (P < .001), facial pain/pressure (P < .001), and in the ear/facial (P < .001) and rhinologic (P = .003) domains. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that runny nose (P < .001) was most predictive of spontaneous CSF rhinorrhea while nasal blockage (P < .001), thick nasal discharge (P < .001), and facial pain/pressure (P = .001) were predictive of CRSsNP after adjusting for relevant confounders. No significant difference was observed in total SNOT-22 scores between groups (P = .676).

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous CSF rhinorrhea is commonly misdiagnosed as other sinonasal pathologies. However, individual SNOT-22 items can help aid in suggesting a CSF leak. Spontaneous CSF rhinorrhea should be suspected in patients who have high SNOT-22 scores for runny nose and report this symptom as most important, but have lower scores related to the other cardinal symptoms of CRS.

Clinical Features and Headache Diagnoses in Patients With Chief Complaint of Craniofacial Pain

OBJECTIVES

Investigate the use of nasal endoscopy, sinus imaging, and neurologic evaluation in patients presenting to a rhinologist primarily for craniofacial pain.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive outpatients presenting to a rhinologist between 2016 and 2019 with chief complaints of craniofacial pain with or without other sinonasal symptoms, who were then referred to and evaluated by headache specialists. Data analyzed included sinusitis symptoms, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores (and facial pain subscores), pain location, nasal endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) findings, and headache diagnoses made by headache specialists.

RESULTS

Of the 134 patients with prominent craniofacial pain, the majority of patients were diagnosed with migraine (50%) or tension-type (22%) headache, followed by multiple other non-sinogenic headache disorders. Approximately 5% of patients had headaches attributed to sinusitis. Amongst all patients, 90% had negative nasal endoscopies. Patients with negative endoscopies were significantly less likely to report smell loss (P = .003) compared to those with positive endoscopies. Poor agreement was demonstrated between self-reported pain locations and sinus findings on CT (kappa values < 0.20). Negative nasal endoscopy showed high concurrence with negative CT findings (80%-97%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with chief complaints of craniofacial pain generally met criteria for various non-sinogenic headache disorders. Nasal endoscopy was negative in 90% of patients, and CT demonstrated poor agreement with pain locations. Nasal endoscopy and CT shared high concurrence rates for negative sinus findings. The value of nasal endoscopy over sinus imaging in craniofacial pain evaluation should be explored in future studies.

Sinus headache: changing the treatment paradigm

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the majority of patients with sinus headache do not have rhinosinusitis, many patients will unnecessarily undergo work-up and treatment for rhinosinusitis. This leads to a significant cost burden to the healthcare system. In the era of value-based care, more effective management paradigms need to be developed for sinus headache.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent efforts to classify nonrhinogenic headache, namely the International Classification of Orofacial Pain, have served as an important step in advancing our understanding of this heterogeneous condition. In addition, a review of the literature points to certain clinical features that may allow for the identification of nonrhinogenic headache based on history.

SUMMARY

A greater understanding of nonrhinogenic headache as well as innovative tools to differentiate rhinogenic from nonrhinogenic headache are needed to change the paradigm in the management of patients with sinus headache.

The predictive utility of the 22-item sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22): A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The 22-item sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) is a widely used and powerful patient-reported outcomes measure for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). More recently; however, the SNOT-22 has been evaluated as a predictive tool for multiple conditions. The objective of this scoping review is to investigate the extent to which SNOT-22 is used in this manner and present this information in a way useful for clinicians.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed. Studies that evaluated SNOT-22s predictive utility were considered for eligibility in this scoping review.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies met eligibility. The SNOT-22 was found to be used as a predictive tool in three broad categories: (1) to predict a diagnosis, (2) to predict an outcome of an intervention, and (3) to predict a patient treatment preference. Thirteen studies were included in the diagnosis category, which made up ten different individual predictions. Twenty-four studies were included in the outcomes category and investigated 17 different individual predictions. Finally, two studies were included in the patient preferences category, which together made one prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNOT-22 is a versatile tool that has the potential to be used in predicting various diagnoses, outcomes, and patient preferences. However, care must be taken in applying these predictions to clinical practice, as further research must be done in validating these predictions based on SNOT-22 responses.

The Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) Is a Poor Diagnostic Tool for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

The SNOT-22 is a validated and widely used outcomes tool in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). We hypothesized that SNOT-22 scores and response patterns could be used as a diagnostic tool to differentiate between patients with CRS and those who present with CRS-like symptoms but prove not to have CRS.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

SNOT-22 measurements were collected from 311 patients who presented with a chief complaint of sinusitis to a tertiary rhinology practice. Following a full diagnostic evaluation, patients were diagnosed with CRS or determined to have non-CRS diagnoses. A response pattern "heatmap" of the SNOT-22 scores for each group was compared. An optimal cutoff point for total SNOT-22 score in predicting CRS was sought using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients were diagnosed with CRS and 202 patients were assigned to non-CRS. The non-CRS SNOT-22 total score histogram had lower overall scores compared to the CRS group, although there was substantial overlap. The CRS SNOT-22 heatmaps had a distinctive pattern compared to the non-CRS group. As individual measures, 3 of the 4 cardinal symptoms of CRS (nasal congestion, loss of smell, and rhinorrhea) were found to be significantly different between the 2 groups (P < .002). However, the ROC analysis showed the total SNOT-22 score to be a poor instrument to differentiate CRS from non-CRS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results cause us to reject our hypothesis and conclude that, while an effective outcomes tool, the SNOT-22 (using total score and response pattern) is a poor differentiator between CRS and non-CRS patients.

Systematic literature review of the epidemiology and clinical burden of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to determine the epidemiology and clinical burden of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and to describe how the addition of biologics has affected outcomes for patients with CRSwNP.

METHODS

The SLR adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase, MEDLINE, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases were searched using OVID. Relevant studies published between 1 January 2008 and 8 February 2019, for epidemiology, and 1 January 2008 and 16 February 2019, for clinical burden, and relevant conference abstracts from 1 January 2017 to 7 March 2019, for epidemiology and 1 January 2017-16 February 2019 for clinical burden were included.

RESULTS

For the epidemiology and clinical burden SLR, 147 and 119 records, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. We found the prevalence of CRSwNP was 1-2.6% and was greater in men. Asthma, allergy, and allergic rhinitis were the most common comorbidities identified. Reported risk factors included asthma, gene polymorphisms, age, and eosinophilia. Studies indicated that dupilumab, mepolizumab, and omalizumab each improved different clinical outcomes. Non-biologics (drugs such as corticosteroids or antibiotics, surgery, or aspirin desensitization) improved clinical outcomes as well.

CONCLUSIONS

CRSwNP is fairly prevalent in the general population. Despite the significant efficacy of existing treatments, several unmet needs remain. The high burden of uncontrolled symptoms, frequent recurrence of nasal polyps after surgery, and long-term adverse effects of oral corticosteroids indicate that new therapies addressing these unmet needs should be developed. Although data on biologics from randomized controlled trials look promising, the efficacy of biologics in the real world has yet to be established. The SLR of the epidemiology and clinical burden of CRSwNP revealed key gaps in the literature. There was a paucity of prevalence data across many geographic areas, and no prevalence projections could be determined. Studies showed varying efficacy of non-biologics and no studies directly compared biologics for efficacy. Data regarding clinical efficacy of agents for eosinophilic CRSwNP or severe CRSwNP were lacking, and these patient populations would be served by more trials.

Symptoms and Clinical Findings in Primary Headache Syndrome Versus Chronic Rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Primary headache syndrome (PHS) patients frequently present to otolaryngologists with sinonasal complaints and diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) due to symptomatic overlap. In this study, we compare demographic, subjective, and objective clinical findings of patients with PHS versus CRS.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a database of patients presenting to a single tertiary care Rhinology clinic from December 2011-July 2017. Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT) scores and Lund-Kennedy endoscopy scores were obtained. Lund-MacKay CT scores were calculated, if available. Requirement of headache specialist management was compared between PHS and CRS groups. Patients with both CRS and PHS (CRScPHS) that required headache specialist management were compared to patients with CRS without PHS (CRSsPHS) and patients with PHS alone using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were carried out to determine significant diagnostic thresholds.

RESULTS

One-hundred four PHS patients and 130 CRS patients were included. PHS patients (72.1%) were more likely than CRS patients to require headache specialist management (6.9%, p<0.0001). CRSsPHS patients had significantly higher Nasal domain scores compared to PHS patients (p = 0.042) but not compared to CRScPHS patients (p>0.99). CRScPHS (p = 0.0003) and PHS (p<0.0001) subgroups of patients had significantly higher Aural/Facial domain scores compared to CRSsPHS patients. PHS patients also had significantly higher Sleep domains scores compared to CRSsPHS patients (p<0.0001). Both CRScPHS and CRSsPHS subgroups had significantly higher nasal endoscopy scores (p<0.0001) and CT scores (p = 0.04 & p<0.0001, respectively) compared to the PHS group. Aural/Facial domain score of 4, nasal endoscopy score of 4, and CT score of 2 were found to be reliable diagnostic thresholds for absence of CRS.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNOT-22 may be used to distinguish PHS from CRS based upon the Aural/Facial and Sleep domains. Patients with CRS have more severe Nasal domain scores and worse objective endoscopy and CT findings.

Symptom Profile of Chronic Rhinosinusitis Versus Obstructive Sleep Apnea in a Tertiary Rhinology Clinic

Objectives:

Patients with undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) often present to an otolaryngologist with symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study analyzes symptom profiles of such patients to help identify those who may benefit from polysomnography.

Methods:

This is a 2-year retrospective analysis of adult patients at an academic practice with a rhinologic chief complaint. Results of the 22-Item Sinonasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-22) were compared between patients with untreated OSA without CRS (OSA group) and a control group of CRS patients (CRS group). Univariate analysis with Bonferroni correction and multiple logistic regression were used.

Results:

Forty-one patients were included in the OSA group (mean apnea-hypopnea index = 28.8, SD = 21.0) and 124 patients in the CRS group. CRS group demonstrated higher scores in nasal, extra-nasal, and ear/facial symptom domains ( P < .001), while OSA group displayed higher psychological ( P = .020) and sleep domain scores ( P = .048). Nasal discharge ( P < .001) and loss of smell/taste ( P = .004) scores were higher in CRS group, whereas facial pain ( P = .285) and nasal obstruction ( P = .822) were not significantly different. On logistic regression, thick nasal discharge, loss of smell/taste, and ear pain were predictive of CRS, while waking up tired was predictive of OSA. Finally, OSA group was more likely to choose a sleep-related issue as a most important symptom (MIS) ( P < .001).

Conclusions:

OSA and CRS have significant overlap in symptom profiles. The SNOT-22 can help identify those with undiagnosed OSA. OSA should be suspected in patients who report a sleep-related item as a MIS and display higher psychological and sleep domain scores.