Moxifloxacin five-day therapy versus placebo in acute bacterial 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.

Regional variation in the potentially inappropriate first-line use of fluoroquinolones in Canada as a key to antibiotic stewardship? A drug utilization review study

Background

Serious adverse effects of fluoroquinolone antibiotics have been described for more than decade. Recently, several drug regulatory agencies have advised restricting their use in milder infections for which other treatments are available, given the potential for disabling and possibly persistent side effects. We aimed to describe variations in fluoroquinolone use for initial treatment of urinary tract infection (UTI), acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS), and acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in the outpatient setting across Canada.

Methods

Using administrative health data from six provinces, we identified ambulatory visits with a diagnosis of uncomplicated UTI, uncomplicated AECOPD or ABS. Antibiotic exposure was determined by the first antibiotic dispensed within 5 days of the visit.

Results

We identified 4,303,144 uncomplicated UTI events among 2,170,027 women; the proportion of events treated with fluoroquinolones, mostly ciprofloxacin, varied across provinces, ranging from 18.6% (Saskatchewan) to 51.6% (Alberta). Among 3,467,678 ABS events (2,087,934 patients), between 2.2% (Nova Scotia) and 11.2% (Ontario) were dispensed a fluoroquinolone. For 1,319,128 AECOPD events among 598,347 patients, fluoroquinolones, mostly levofloxacin and moxifloxacin, ranged from 5.8% (Nova Scotia) to 35.6% (Ontario). The proportion of uncomplicated UTI and ABS events treated with fluoroquinolones declined over time, whereas it remained relatively stable for AECOPD.

Conclusions

Fluoroquinolones were commonly used as first-line therapies for uncomplicated UTI and AECOPD. However, their use varied widely across provinces. Drug insurance formulary criteria and enforcement may be a key to facilitating better antibiotic stewardship and limiting potentially inappropriate first-line use of fluoroquinolones.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-06467-z.

Antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Acute rhinosinusitis is an acute infection of the nasal passages and paranasal sinuses that lasts less than four weeks. Diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis is generally based on clinical signs and symptoms in ambulatory care settings. Technical investigations are not routinely performed, nor are they recommended in most countries. Some trials show a trend in favour of antibiotics, but the balance of benefit versus harm is unclear.We merged two Cochrane Reviews for this update, which comprised different approaches with overlapping populations, resulting in different conclusions. For this review update, we maintained the distinction between populations diagnosed by clinical signs and symptoms, or imaging.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment in adults with acute rhinosinusitis in ambulatory care settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 12), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2018), Embase (January 1974 to January 2018), and two trials registers (January 2018). We also checked references from identified trials, systematic reviews, and relevant guidelines.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment in people with rhinosinusitis-like signs or symptoms or sinusitis confirmed by imaging.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data about cure and side effects and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information as required.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials involving 3057 participants. Of the 15 included trials, 10 appeared in our 2012 review, and five (631 participants) are legacy trials from merging two reviews. No new studies were included from searches for this update. Overall, risk of bias was low. Without antibiotics, 46% of participants with rhinosinusitis, whether or not confirmed by radiography, were cured after 1 week and 64% after 14 days. Antibiotics can shorten time to cure, but only 5 to 11 more people per 100 will be cured faster if they receive antibiotics instead of placebo or no treatment: clinical diagnosis (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.54; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19, 95% CI 10 to 205; I² = 0%; 8 trials; high-quality evidence) and diagnosis confirmed by radiography (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.39; NNTB 10, 95% CI 5 to 136; I² = 0%; 3 trials; moderate-quality evidence). Cure rates with antibiotics were higher when a fluid level or total opacification in any sinus was found on computed tomography (OR 4.89, 95% CI 1.75 to 13.72; NNTB 4, 95% CI 2 to 15; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence). Purulent secretion resolved faster with antibiotics (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.22; NNTB 10, 95% CI 6 to 35; I² = 0%; 3 trials; high-quality evidence). However, 13 more people experienced side effects with antibiotics compared to placebo or no treatment (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.82; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 8, 95% CI 6 to 12; I² = 16%; 10 trials; high-quality evidence). Five fewer people per 100 will experience clinical failure if they receive antibiotics instead of placebo or no treatment (Peto OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63; NNTH 19, 95% CI 15 to 27; I² = 21%; 12 trials; high-quality evidence). A disease-related complication (brain abscess) occurred in one participant (of 3057) one week after receiving open antibiotic therapy (clinical failure, control group).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The potential benefit of antibiotics to treat acute rhinosinusitis diagnosed either clinically (low risk of bias, high-quality evidence) or confirmed by imaging (low to unclear risk of bias, moderate-quality evidence) is marginal and needs to be seen in the context of the risk of adverse effects. Considering antibiotic resistance, and the very low incidence of serious complications, we conclude there is no place for antibiotics for people with uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis. We could not draw conclusions about children, people with suppressed immune systems, and those with severe sinusitis, because these populations were not included in the available trials.

Should We Prescribe Antibiotics to This Patient With Persistent Upper Respiratory Symptoms?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published advice for high-value care on the appropriate use of antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections. They conducted a narrative literature review of evidence for antibiotic use in this setting that included recent clinical guidelines from professional societies supplemented by randomized, controlled trials; meta-analyses; and systematic reviews. They concluded that clinicians should reserve antibiotic treatment for acute rhinosinusitis in patients with persistent symptoms for more than 10 days, high fever and purulent nasal discharge or facial pain lasting for at least 3 consecutive days, or worsening symptoms after a typical viral illness that lasted 5 days and had initially improved ("double-sickening"). In this Grand Rounds, 2 prominent clinicians debate whether to initiate antibiotic treatment in a 62-year-old man with a history of recurrent sinusitis who presents with persistent upper respiratory symptoms. They review the data on which the ACP/CDC recommendations are based and discuss the potential benefits and risks, as well as the challenges and controversies, of prescribing antibiotic therapy in this setting.

Guidelines for the Antibiotic Use in Adults with Acute Upper Respiratory Tract Infections

These guidelines were developed as part of the 2016 Policy Research Servicing Project by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A multidisciplinary approach was taken to formulate this guideline to provide practical information about the diagnosis and treatment of adults with acute upper respiratory tract infection, with the ultimate aim to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics. The formulation of this guideline was based on a systematic literature review and analysis of the latest research findings to facilitate evidence-based practice, and focused on key questions to help clinicians obtain solutions to clinical questions that may arise during the care of a patient. These guidelines mainly cover the subjects on the assessment of antibiotic indications and appropriate selection of antibiotics for adult patients with acute pharyngotonsillitis or acute sinusitis.

Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients' health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient's health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment-Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention.

Rhinosinusitis associated with post-dental extraction chronic oroantral fistula: outcomes of non-surgical management comprising antibiotics and local decongestion therapy

Objective:

A non-surgical approach for managing rhinosinusitis associated with chronic oroantral fistula resulting from tooth extraction was evaluated.

Methods:

Twenty-six consecutive patients (15 males and 11 females) aged 28–72 years (mean, 49.81 years) were administered local decongestion therapy for 2 weeks and antibiotics for 10 days. Patients showing a reduction in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 scores after two weeks continued to receive local decongestion therapy weekly for up to six weeks, while those not showing any improvement underwent surgical management.

Results:

At 2 weeks, 17 patients (65.38 per cent) showed an improvement in rhinosinusitis (33.39 per cent mean reduction in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 scores). The primary determinant of response was fistula size. At 6 weeks, sinusitis resolved completely in all 17 patients, and the fistula closed in 16 of these. Final Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 and Lund–Mackay scores showed no significant difference between the surgically treated and non-surgically treated groups.

Conclusion:

Local decongestion therapy along with antibiotics may promote resolution in this subset of rhinosinusitis patients.

WITHDRAWN: Antibiotics for acute maxillary sinusitis in adults

Currently, two separate Cochrane reviews, ‘Antibiotics for acute maxillary sinusitis in adults ’ and ‘Antibiotics for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis in adults ’ describe the effect of antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis. Although both Cochrane reviews study the same condition, they look at different populations (patients in which the diagnosis was based on clinical signs and symptoms and patients in which the diagnosis was confirmed by imaging). Because of this, the conclusions are different in these Cochrane reviews. This was confusing for clinicians who needed to read both Cochrane reviews to know which conclusions are most applicable to their patients.
 
 This review is being withdrawn and will be incorporated into the updated publication of ‘Antibiotics for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis in adults ’. This ‘merged’ review will still maintain the relevant distinction between the two populations. However, information on the effectiveness of antibiotics for rhinosinusitis will be published in the ‘merged’ Cochrane review. We will omit the comparison between antibiotics (as published in this Cochrane review) because the choice for certain antibiotics and/or doses differs according to the local antibiotic resistance patterns and therefore this comparison is less relevant.

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

The prevalence of bacterial infection in acute rhinosinusitis: a Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To systematically assess the prevalence of bacterial infection in adults with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS).

METHODS

Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant studies published up to June 2012.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles, evaluating a total of 9,595 patients with a clinical diagnosis of ARS, were included in the study. Of these, 14 (48%) studies required radiographic confirmation of sinusitis, one study (3%) required evidence of purulence, 10 studies (35%) required both for inclusion in the study population, and four studies (14%) required neither. The random effects model estimate of prevalence of bacterial growth on all cultures was 53.7% (CI 48.4%-59.0%), ranging from 52.5% (CI 46.7%-58.3%) in studies requiring radiographic confirmation of sinusitis to 61.1% (CI 54.0%-68.1%) in studies requiring neither radiographic evidence nor purulence on exam. Studies that obtained cultures from antral swab had a prevalence of bacterial growth of 61.0% (CI 54.7%-67.2%), whereas those utilizing endoscopic meatal sampling had a prevalence of 32.9% (CI 19.0%-46.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies evaluate the recovery of bacteria via culture in adults with a diagnosis of ABRS or ARS based on clinical criteria alone. With radiographic and/or endoscopic confirmation, antral puncture and endoscopically guided cultures produce positive bacterial cultures in approximately one-half of patients. Opportunities exist to improve diagnostic accuracy for bacterial infection in ARS.

Antibiotics for acute maxillary sinusitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Sinusitis is one of the most common diagnoses among adults in ambulatory care, accounting for 15% to 21% of all adult outpatient antibiotic prescriptions. However, the role of antibiotics for sinusitis is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antibiotics in adults with acute maxillary sinusitis by comparing antibiotics with placebo, antibiotics from different classes and the side effects of different treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 2, MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), EMBASE (1974 to March 2013), SIGLE (OpenSIGLE, later OpenGrey (accessed 15 January 2013)), reference lists of the identified trials and systematic reviews of placebo-controlled studies. We also searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We imposed no language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotics with placebo or antibiotics from different classes for acute maxillary sinusitis in adults. We included trials with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis, confirmed or not by imaging or bacterial culture.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for differences between intervention and control groups in whether the treatment failed or not. All measures are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We conducted the meta-analyses using either the fixed-effect or random-effects model. In meta-analyses of the placebo-controlled studies, we combined data across antibiotic classes. Primary outcomes were clinical failure rates at 7 to 15 days and 16 to 60 days follow-up. We used GRADEpro to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 studies in this updated review; nine placebo-controlled studies involving 1915 participants (seven of the studies clearly conducted in primary care settings) and 54 studies comparing different classes of antibiotics (10 different comparisons). Five studies at low risk of bias comparing penicillin or amoxicillin to placebo provided information on the main outcome: clinical failure rate at 7 to 15 days follow-up, defined as a lack of full recovery or improvement, for participants with symptoms lasting at least seven days. In these studies antibiotics decreased the risk of clinical failure (pooled RR of 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.94, 1084 participants randomised, 1058 evaluated, moderate quality evidence). However, the clinical benefit was small. Cure or improvement rates were high in both the placebo group (86%) and the antibiotic group (91%) in these five studies. When clinical failure was defined as a lack of full recovery (n = five studies), results were similar: antibiotics decreased the risk of failure (pooled RR of 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85, high quality evidence) at 7 to 15 days follow-up.Adverse effects in seven of the nine placebo-controlled studies (comparing penicillin, amoxicillin, azithromycin or moxicillin to placebo) were more common in antibiotic than in placebo groups (median of difference between groups 10.5%, range 2% to 23%). However, drop-outs due to adverse effects were rare in both groups: 1.5% in antibiotic groups and 1% in control groups.In the 10 head-to-head comparisons, none of the antibiotic preparations were superior to another. However, amoxicillin-clavulanate had significantly more drop-outs due to adverse effects than cephalosporins and macrolides.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate evidence that antibiotics provide a small benefit for clinical outcomes in immunocompetent primary care patients with uncomplicated acute sinusitis. However, about 80% of participants treated without antibiotics improved within two weeks. Clinicians need to weigh the small benefits of antibiotic treatment against the potential for adverse effects at both the individual and general population levels.

Acute sinusitis in children: do antibiotics have any role?

Bacteria can be recovered from paranasal sinuses in the majority of patients given the diagnosis of acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS), and bacteriologic cure can be achieved with appropriate antibiotic treatment. The critical question is whether bacteriologic cure correlates with meaningful clinical endpoints such as clinical improvement, reduction in recurrent disease, or prevention of complications. Of the 4 pediatric placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (PCRCTs), 2 suggest superiority of antibiotic treatment and 2 suggest lack of superiority. PCRCTs in adults are mixed as to clinical benefit. Pediatric and adult meta-analyses demonstrate modest benefit of antibiotic therapy and rates of spontaneous recovery without antibiotics of 60-65%. Although retrospective studies indicate that some patients who develop orbital or neurologic complications of sinusitis were pre-treated with antibiotic therapy, a low rate of complications precludes determination of whether antibiotic treatment prevents complications in some proportion of patients. Like the literature evidence, expert guideline recommendations are mixed. Although the evidence base is incomplete and conflicting, the limited data suggest that antibiotics probably do have a role in the treatment of pediatric ABS. The most compelling rationale is prevention of serious complications, but proof for this rationale is lacking.

Acute sinusitis in children

Acute rhinosinusitis is a common illness in children. Viral upper respiratory tract infection is the most common presentation of rhinosinusitis. Most children resolve the infection spontaneously and only a small proportion develops a secondary bacterial infection. The proper choice of antibiotic therapy depends on the likely infecting pathogens, bacterial antibiotic resistance, and pharmacologic profiles of antibiotics. Amoxicillin-clavulanate is currently recommended as the empiric treatment in those requiring antimicrobial therapy. Isolation of the causative agents should be considered in those who failed the initial treatment. In addition to antibiotics, adjuvant therapies and surgery may be used in the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.

Antibiotics for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis in adults

BACKGROUND

In primary care settings, the diagnosis of rhinosinusitis is generally based on clinical signs and symptoms. Technical investigations are not routinely performed, nor recommended. Individual trials show a trend in favour of antibiotics, but the balance of benefit versus harm is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of antibiotics in adults with clinically diagnosed rhinosinusitis in primary care settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2012), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February week 4, 2012) and EMBASE (January 1974 to February 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotics versus placebo in participants with rhinosinusitis-like signs or symptoms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials involving 2450 participants. Overall, the risk of bias in these studies was low. Irrespective of the treatment group, 47% of participants were cured after one week and 71% after 14 days. Antibiotics can shorten the time to cure, but only five more participants per 100 will cure faster at any time point between 7 and 14 days if they receive antibiotics instead of placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB)) 18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 10 to 115, I(2) statistic 0%, eight trials). Purulent secretion resolves faster with antibiotics (odds ratio (OR) 1.58 (95% CI 1.13 to 2.22)), (NNTB 11, 95% CI 6 to 51, I(2) statistic 0%, three trials). However, 27% of the participants who received antibiotics and 15% of those who received placebo experienced adverse events (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.77) (number needed to treat to harm (NNTH)) 8 (95% CI 6 to 13, I(2) statistic 13%, seven trials). More participants in the placebo group needed to start antibiotic therapy because of an abnormal course of rhinosinusitis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.66), NNTH 20 (95% CI 14 to 35, I(2) statistic 0%, eight trials). Only one disease-related complication (brain abscess) occurred in a patient treated with antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The potential benefit of antibiotics in the treatment of clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis needs to be seen in the context of a high prevalence of adverse events. Taking into account antibiotic resistance and the very low incidence of serious complications, we conclude that there is no place for antibiotics for the patient with clinically diagnosed, uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis. This review cannot make recommendations for children, patients with a suppressed immune system and patients with severe disease, as these populations were not included in the available trials.

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

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

Canadian clinical practice guidelines for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis

This document provides healthcare practitioners with information regarding the management of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) to enable them to better meet the needs of this patient population. These guidelines describe controversies in the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) and include recommendations that take into account changes in the bacteriologic landscape. Recent guidelines in ABRS have been released by American and European groups as recently as 2007, but these are either limited in their coverage of the subject of CRS, do not follow an evidence-based strategy, or omit relevant stakeholders in guidelines development, and do not address the particulars of the Canadian healthcare environment.

Advances in understanding the pathophysiology of CRS, along with the development of appropriate therapeutic strategies, have improved outcomes for patients with CRS. CRS now affects large numbers of patients globally and primary care practitioners are confronted by this disease on a daily basis. Although initially considered a chronic bacterial infection, CRS is now recognized as having multiple distinct components (eg, infection, inflammation), which have led to changes in therapeutic approaches (eg, increased use of corticosteroids). The role of bacteria in the persistence of chronic infections, and the roles of surgical and medical management are evolving. Although evidence is limited, guidance for managing patients with CRS would help practitioners less experienced in this area offer rational care. It is no longer reasonable to manage CRS as a prolonged version of ARS, but rather, specific therapeutic strategies adapted to pathogenesis must be developed and diffused.

Guidelines must take into account all available evidence and incorporate these in an unbiased fashion into management recommendations based on the quality of evidence, therapeutic benefit, and risks incurred. This document is focused on readability rather than completeness, yet covers relevant information, offers summaries of areas where considerable evidence exists, and provides recommendations with an assessment of strength of the evidence base and degree of endorsement by the multidisciplinary expert group preparing the document.

These guidelines have been copublished in both Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and the Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.