Controlled trial for long-term low-dose erythromycin after sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis

Sinonasal inverted papilloma and predictors of health-related quality of life after endonasal endoscopic surgery: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Existing knowledge on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after surgical removal of sinonasal inverted papilloma (IP) is limited. Moreover, predictors for a better or worse post-operative HRQoL outcome are not known. Our aim was to assess HRQoL in all three health domains (physical, psychological, and social), track its post-operative trajectory, investigate if pre-operative observations could predict distinct post-operative HRQoL outcomes, and evaluate whether physicians' interventions could contribute to improved post-operative HRQoL.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-four patients who underwent surgery for an IP were included. They were asked to fill in the Endonasal Endoscopic Sinus and Skull-Base Surgery Questionnaire (EES-Q) pre-operatively, and then 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year post-operatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Linear mixed models analyses were performed to evaluate the overall post-operative HRQoL and the separate health domains, as well as the impact of specific variables (sex, age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists [ASA] classification, smoker, Krouse staging, pre-operative EES-Q score, type of surgery, and post-operative antibiotics) on HRQoL improvement.

RESULTS

The total EES-Q score (p < .001) as well as the physical (p < .001), psychological (p = .049), and the social (p = .002) domains significantly improved post-operatively. ASA classification (p = .049), pre-operative EES-Q score (p < .001) and post-operative antibiotics (p = .036) were significant variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall HRQoL, as well as each of the three health domains, improved significantly. A higher ASA score, a higher pre-operative EES-Q score, and the administration of post-operative antibiotics were significant predictors for better HRQoL recovery post-operatively. Further research is necessary to confirm these results.

[Difficult-to-treat chronic rhinosinusitis-when the standard treatment is not effective and biologics are not available]

BACKGROUND

In recent years, significant improvements have been made in the treatment options for uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to standard medical and surgical therapy. This is the result of a better understanding of the pathophysiology and the resulting development of biologicals for CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, biologics are not (yet) available for all patients in Europe.

OBJECTIVE

Based on the session "Difficult-to-treat CRS, when biologics are not available" at the 29th Congress of the European Rhinologic Society (ERS) 2023 in Sofia, Bulgaria, the treatment options for uncontrolled CRS with the exclusion of biologics will be discussed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The content of the presentations "Is there a place for antibiotics?" "Indications for revision surgery," "Novel systemic treatment options," "Novel local treatment options," and "Phototherapy for nasal polyps" are outlined and supported by a review of the literature.

RESULTS

Various treatment options are available for managing uncontrolled CRS, even if biologic treatments are unavailable. Treatment options for type‑2 (T2) CRS include steroid rinses, repeated short-term oral steroids, steroid-eluting stents, and extended sinus surgery. In the case of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) desensitization can be considered. Non-T2 endotypes or CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) may benefit from several weeks of macrolides and xylitol rinses.

CONCLUSION

To accurately assess the efficacy of second-line therapies for treatment of difficult-to-treat CRS within an endotype-specific framework, additional controlled clinical trials are needed that take into account the heterogeneity of CRS endotypes.

Efficacy and Safety of Long-Term Low-Dose Clarithromycin in Patients With Refractory Chronic Sinusitis After Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To observe the efficacy and safety of postoperative long-term low-dose oral administration of clarithromycin in patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (RCRS), to explore the characteristics of postoperative microbiota in the nasal cavity in patients with RCRS, and to compare the differences and changes in microbiota in the nasal cavity before and after medication.

METHODS

This was a prospective, self-controlled study. Eighteen patients with RCRS who had persistent symptoms after endoscopic sinus surgery and standard therapy with normal immunoglobulin E and eosinophil level were included. Low dose (250 mg, once daily) clarithromycin was orally administrated for 12 weeks. Symptom severity and endoscopic findings were evaluated before, after 4 weeks, and 12 weeks of treatment, and nasal cavity microbiota was analyzed simultaneously.

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients with RCRS were enrolled and 17 patients completed the study. Four weeks after oral administration of clarithromycin, significant improvement was observed in subjective symptoms including nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and general discomfort, as well as endoscopic findings including general surgical cavity condition, rhinedema, and rhinorrhea (P < .05). After continuous treatment to the 12th week, symptoms showed significant improvement compared with baseline, and endoscopic score showed significant improvement compared with both baseline and 4 weeks after treatment. Analysis of middle nasal meatus flora revealed a significant decrease of Streptococcus pneumoniae after 12 weeks of clarithromycin treatment (P < .05), while the richness, composition, and diversity were similar before and after treatment. Patients enrolled experienced no adverse drug reaction or allergic reaction, nor clinical significant liver function impairment observed.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative low-dose long-term oral administration of clarithromycin in patients with RCRS can improve the clinical symptoms and facilitate the mucosal epithelialization, with good tolerance and safety. The efficacy of clarithromycin in patients with RCRS may be related to its regulatory effect on nasal cavity microbiota.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Macrolide in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis After Endoscopic Sinus Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of macrolide antibiotics therapy in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) receiving endoscopic sinus surgery.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

The electronic databases were comprehensively searched on June 2, 2022, for randomized controlled trials on macrolide antibiotics in the treatment of patients undergoing CRS endoscopic surgery. The primary outcome measures were the sinonasal outcome test (SNOT) score and the visual analog scale (VAS) score. The secondary outcome measures were the nasal endoscopy score (NES), the sinus computed tomography score, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies were included, involving 606 patients who used macrolide for a long time. Meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was observed in SNOT (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.38 to 0.13, I2  = 0%) and VAS (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.88 to 0.68, I2  = 81%) between the macrolide and placebo groups. However, macrolide outperformed the placebo in improving NES (SMD = -0.32; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.03, I2  = 21%). The use of macrolide did not increase the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Long-term use of macrolide after CRS surgery may not significantly improve the quality of life and disease severity of the patients but may play a role in improving postoperative NES in patients with CRS. There is still no sufficient evidence to determine whether the disease phenotype of CRS or the patient's race will affect the efficacy of long-term use of macrolide after CRS.

Azithromycin Mechanisms of Action in CRS Include Epithelial Barrier Restoration and Type 1 Inflammation Reduction

OBJECTIVE

Previous in vitro transcriptomic profiling suggests azithromycin exerts its effects in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) via modulation of type 1 inflammation and restoration of epithelial barrier function. We wished to verify these postulated effects using in vitro models of epithelial repair and in vivo transcriptional profiling.

STUDY DESIGN

Functional effects of azithromycin in CRS were verified using in vitro models of wounding. The mechanism of the effect of azithromycin was assessed in vivo using transcriptomic profiling.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

METHODS

Effects of azithromycin on the speed of epithelial repair were verified in a wounding model using primary nasal epithelial cells (pNEC) from CRS patients. Nasal brushings collected pre-and posttreatment during a placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin for CRS patients unresponsive to surgery underwent transcriptomic profiling to identify implicated pathways.

RESULTS

Administration of azithromycin improved the wound healing rates in CRS pNECs and prevented the negative effect of Staphylococcus aureus on epithelial repair. In vivo, response to azithromycin was associated with downregulation in pathways of type 1 inflammation, and upregulation of pathways implicated in the restoration of the cell cycle.

CONCLUSION

Restoration of healthy epithelial function may represent a major mode of action of azithromycin in CRS. In vitro models show enhanced epithelial repair, while in vivo transcriptomics shows downregulation of pathways type 1 inflammation accompanied by upregulation of DNA repair and cell-cycle pathways. The maximal effect in patients with high levels of type 1-enhanced inflammation suggests that azithromycin may represent a novel therapeutic option for surgery-unresponsive CRS patients.

The Mechanism of Action and Clinical Efficacy of Low-Dose Long-Term Macrolide Therapy in Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Various chronic inflammatory airway diseases can be treated with low-dose, long-term (LDLT) macrolide therapy. LDLT macrolides can be one of the therapeutic options for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) due to their immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory actions. Currently, various immunomodulatory mechanisms of the LDLT macrolide treatment have been reported, as well as their antimicrobial properties. Several mechanisms have already been identified in CRS, including reduced cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-8, IL-6, IL-1β, tumor necrosis factor-α, transforming growth factor-β, inhibition of neutrophil recruitment, decreased mucus secretion, and increased mucociliary transport. Although some evidence of effectiveness for CRS has been published, the efficacy of this therapy has been inconsistent across clinical studies. LDLT macrolides are generally believed to act on the non-type 2 inflammatory endotype of CRS. However, the effectiveness of LDLT macrolide treatment in CRS is still controversial. Here, we reviewed the immunological mechanisms related to CRS in LDLT macrolide therapy and the treatment effects according to the clinical situation of CRS.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Olfaction

BACKGROUND

The literature regarding clinical olfaction, olfactory loss, and olfactory dysfunction has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, with an exponential rise in the past year. There is substantial variability in the quality of this literature and a need to consolidate and critically review the evidence. It is with that aim that we have gathered experts from around the world to produce this International Consensus on Allergy and Rhinology: Olfaction (ICAR:O).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to olfaction. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review, or evidence-based review with recommendations format as dictated by available evidence and scope within the ICAR:O document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:O document was integrated and reviewed by all authors for final consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:O document reviews nearly 100 separate topics within the realm of olfaction, including diagnosis, epidemiology, disease burden, diagnosis, testing, etiology, treatment, and associated pathologies.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the existing clinical olfaction literature provides much needed insight and clarity into the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with olfactory dysfunction, while also clearly delineating gaps in our knowledge and evidence base that we should investigate further.

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.

Revisiting Asian chronic rhinosinusitis in the era of type 2 biologics

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a highly heterogeneous disorder exhibiting considerable epidemiological, clinical and immunopathological variations across patients with distinct ethnic backgrounds and in different geographic locations. Asian CRS patients present less eosinophilic and type 2 (T2) inflammation, but more prominent neutrophilic inflammation compared with patients in Western countries. Although several biologics targeting important elements of T2 inflammation, such as IL-4, IL-5, IL-13 and IgE, demonstrate promising benefit for Caucasian patients with recurrent nasal polyps, their efficacy in Asian patients remains poorly defined. The distinct endotypes in Asian patients warrant the identification and selection of patients who would benefit from T2 biologics in Asian countries. Additionally, developing novel treatments targeting neutrophilic, type 1, and type 3 inflammation may benefit approximately 50% of Asian CRS patients with non-T2 inflammation. In this review, we summarized and discussed recent progress in the study of Asian CRS endotypes in comparison with those in patients in Western countries, and the methods of identifying Asian patients with eosinophilic or T2 inflammation. T2 biologic treatment of Asian CRS patients, potential therapeutic candidates targeting non-T2 inflammation in Asian CRS patients and the progress on developing other T2 biologics were discussed.

Erythromycin reduces nasal inflammation by inhibiting immunoglobulin production, attenuating mucus secretion, and modulating cytokine expression

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) share some similar pathological mechanisms. In current study, we intend to investigate the impact of AR on CRS. In addition, we explored the efficacy of erythromycin (EM) treatment on CRS mice with or without AR (CRSwoAR, CRSwAR). Study subjects were divided into control, CRSwoAR, and CRSwAR groups. Experimental mice were divided similarly into control, CRSwoAR, and CRSwAR groups. In addition, CRS mice were treated with EM at 0.75, 7.5, or 75 mg/kg or with dexamethasone (Dex) at 1 mg/kg. In our results, allergy exacerbates inflammation that was evident in nasal histology and cytokine expression both in patients and in mice with CRS. Dex 1 mg/kg, EM 7.5 or 75 mg/kg treatments significantly inhibited serum IgE and IgG2a in CRS mice. EM-treated CRS mice had significantly elevated IL-10 levels and had a reversal of Th-1/Th-2 cytokine expression in nasal-associated lymphoid tissue. MUC5AC expressions were significantly reduced in the 7.5 or 75 mg/kg EM-treated mice compared with untreated mice. EM showed inhibitions on immunoglobulin production and mucus secretion stronger than Dex. We concluded that comorbid AR enhanced inflammation of CRS. EM and Dex treatments showed similar anti-inflammatory effects on CRS but through partly different mechanisms.

Predictive factors for identifying macrolide responder in treating chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Low-dose macrolides (LDM) are anti-inflammatory agents with antineutrophilic activity, but patient selection for LDM therapy in treating chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is controversial. This study aimed to assess factors which predict LDM responders.

METHODOLOGY

A prospective cohort study was performed. Patients with CRS received roxithromycin (150 mg) once daily for 12 weeks. Nasal secretions and serology were collected. Nine predictors for LDM response were assessed: nasal secretion IgE, nasal secretion IL-5, serum IgE, serum eosinophils, serum neutrophils, nasal polyps, asthma, allergy, and aspirin hypersensitivity, using receiver-operating curve analysis and multivariable logistic regression. Macrolide responders were those with sino-nasal outcome test-22 improvement, symptoms visual analogue scale decreased to ≤ ≤ ≤5, and no rescue medication.

RESULTS

One hundred CRS patients (mean age 47.4 +- 14.1 years, 45% male) were enrolled. Univariable logistic regression showed local total IgE less than 5.21; and serum eosinophils less than 2.2% associated with macrolide response. Multivariate models showed local total IgE maintained an independent association with macrolide response, with an ability to discriminate between responders and non-responders of 63%. Serum total IgE, nasal secretion IL-5, serum neutrophil, nasal polyp, asthma, allergy, and aspirin hypersensitivity showed no association with LDM response.

CONCLUSIONS

Low total IgE level in the nasal secretion but not in the serum, predict LDM response.

Safety review of current systemic treatments for severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and future directions

Introduction: Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common condition characterized by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, rhinorrhea, nasal blockage, facial pain, and loss of sense of smell for longer than 12 weeks. CRS can occur with or without nasal polyps.Areas covered: First-line treatment in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is long-term intranasal corticosteroids, which have few adverse events associated with their use, as second-generation intranasal corticosteroids having a bioavailability of <0.5%. Systemic corticosteroids are used when intranasal steroids fail to achieve symptom control. However, the repeated use of oral corticosteroids is associated with numerous adverse events and the benefit from a course of oral corticosteroids is lost within three to six months.Expert opinion: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in nasal polyposis although there is also very little evidence for their use outside of acute infection. Macrolide antibiotics are also associated with a transient increase in the risk of arrhythmias. Biologics offer a steroid-sparing alternative to the treatment of severe nasal polyposis. They have shown to be relatively well tolerated in studies to date; however, studies suggest that there is no disease modifying effect and that any benefit is lost within weeks of finishing treatment.

Sinonasal and gastrointestinal bacterial composition and abundance are stable after 1 week of once-daily oral antibiotic treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread prescription of antibiotics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), their efficacy remains uncertain. Limited penetration of systemic antibiotics into the sinonasal mucosa has been reported previously by this group. This study aimed to investigate the short-term effects of antibiotics on the sinus and gut microbiota as well as any relationships these had with drug distribution.

METHODS

Thirty subjects undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery for CRS were randomized to one of three groups: (1) doxycycline (100 mg daily for 7 days); (2) roxithromycin (300 mg daily for 7 days); and (3) control (no antibiotics given). Sinonasal and stool samples collected before and after treatment were analyzed using 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene-targeted amplicon sequencing and Droplet Digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for bacterial community composition and the quantification of bacterial DNA, respectively.

RESULTS

There were no significant major bacterial community shifts or changes to bacterial diversity and load following the treatment period in all patient groups. Non-significant trend reductions were observed in gut microbial diversity with antibiotics. For the roxithromycin group, sinonasal bacterial diversity was negatively correlated with serum drug levels and reduced overall compared to controls (p < 0.05). The relative abundance of Staphylococcus ASV129 in sinonasal samples reduced with increasing mucus doxycycline levels (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic prescription for CRS should be further investigated because of preliminary evidence of poor sinonasal drug penetration, unproven efficacy, and the potential impact of dysbiosis in the sinuses and off-target sites. Further studies should consider distinguishing the presence of DNA from viable and nonviable bacteria.

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 Use of Postoperative Antibiotics Following Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sinus surgery is performed for medically recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis. There is no universally accepted strategy regarding post-operative antibiotics despite the high rates of usage worldwide. The aim of this study was to analyse patient-reported and objective outcomes behind antibiotic use following endoscopic sinus surgery.

METHODS

A search of electronic databases was performed. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials were included. The primary outcome was patient reported outcome measures. Secondary outcomes were local infections, endoscopy scores and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of 1045 publications identified, 7 were included in the qualitative synthesis and 5 RCTs were included in meta-analysis. Antibiotic regimens varied between studies in terms of antibiotic selection, timing commenced and duration of use. Meta-analysis suggested no significant difference between placebo and antibiotics in patient reported outcome measures (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.215, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.637 to 0.207) or endoscopic scores (SMD -2.86, 95% CI -0.846 to 0.273). There was no consistent definition in reporting of infection; therefore, this outcome cannot be comprehensively considered. No severe adverse events were attributable to antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

From the studies analysed, there is no level 1 evidence to suggest that antibiotics improved patient outcomes following sinus surgery. However, there was significant heterogeneity in outcome measures and no clear data exists regarding the effects of antibiotics on postoperative infections. The available evidence at present is not enough to make a recommendation in either direction. Further designed larger RCTs are required to investigate these questions in more detail.

[Dynamic monitoring of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps]

In connection with the prevalence and tendency to relapse, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is an urgent problem not only for otorhinolaryngologists, but also for specialists whose therapeutic activity is somehow related to the respiratory system. Based on clinical observations, 5 phenotypes of this pathology were identified, each of which requires an individual approach to treatment and prevention. As a rule, the first stage is functional endoscopic rhinosinus surgery, the volume of which is determined depending on the phenotype. But even with a carefully performed operation, the result of surgical treatment may be unsatisfactory if there was no adequate care in the early inpatient and outpatient periods. This paper highlights the features of dynamic monitoring of patients with different phenotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

The Role of Macrolides and Doxycycline in Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Antibiotic therapy has become an important adjunct in the management of recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) because of some antibiotics' immunomodulatory properties even at subtherapeutic antimicrobial levels. Macrolide antibiotics, such as clarithromycin and azithromycin, decrease production of proinflammatory cytokines, impair neutrophil recruitment, inhibit bacterial biofilm formation, and improve mucus quality. Doxycycline, a tetracycline antibiotic, inhibits the activity of matrix metalloproteinases in CRS with nasal polyposis. This article reviews the clinical applications for macrolide and doxycycline use in CRS, considerations for dosing and duration of treatment, and important side effects and drug interactions associated with these medications.

The effects of erythromycin towards the treatment of persistent rhinosinusitis after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: A randomized, active comparator-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Long-term, low-dose macrolide treatment has been in recent use to treat chronic rhinosinusitis. In this study, we investigated the effect of long-term, low-dose erythromycin on patients who had persistent rhinosinusitis after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS).

METHODS

Patients with persistent rhinosinusitis for 3 months after FESS were recruited and randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in the erythromycin group took erythromycin (250 mg twice a day) for 12 weeks, while those in the intranasal steroid group were administered with mometasone furoate nasal spray for 12 weeks. Both before and after treatment, sino-nasal symptoms were assessed via questionnaires. Patients also received an endoscopic examination, acoustic rhinometry, smell test, and saccharine transit test. A bacterial culture was obtained from the middle meatus.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients completed the study, with 35 in the erythromycin group and 37 in the intranasal steroid group. Endoscopic scores decreased significantly after treatment in both groups. Erythromycin improved the smell threshold and saccharine transit time better than the intranasal steroid. In contrast, the intranasal steroid increased the second minimal cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity at a level greater than erythromycin had.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that long-term, low-dose erythromycin treatment improved the endoscopic score, smell threshold, and saccharine transit time in patients with persistent rhinosinusitis after FESS.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Macrolide antibiotics in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: evidence from a meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study was to systematically assess the subjective and objective outcomes of macrolide therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical trials detailing the effects of macrolide therapy in patients with CRS and published up to December 2017. Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT), endoscopic scores and computed tomography scans (CT) scores were assessed by mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the source of heterogeneity according to study design and geographic locations. I² metric was used to assess the heterogeneity.

Results

Seven randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and four cohort trials meeting pre-determined selection criteria were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Assessment of the findings for SNOT after 12 weeks' macrolide treatment demonstrated a significant improvement in subgroup of trials in Asian patients (SMD =-0.51; 95% CI: -0.96, -0.02; P=0.04), but not in non-Asians (SMD =-0.01; 95% CI: -0.65, 0.63; P=0.98). At 12 or 24 weeks' visit no significant difference in SNOT was noted compared with control group, either in RCTs or cohort trials subgroups. However, findings for endoscopic scores were found to be significantly improved compared to placebo in the subgroup of non-RCT studies after 8 weeks (SMD =-0.77; 95% CI: -1.07, -0.46; P<0.00001) and 12 weeks (SMD=-1.40; 95% CI: -1.97, -0.82; P<0.00001) of macrolide therapy. Similarly, findings for CT scores showed significant improvements in CT scores compared to baseline after 12 weeks' treatment (MD=-5.81; 95% CI: -8.10, -3.52; P<0.00001) in cohort trials.

Conclusions

Macrolide therapy can significantly improve endoscopic and CT scores in CRS patients, compared to baseline. Further well-designed studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of macrolides in CRS treatment.

The overlap between bronchiectasis and chronic airway diseases: state of the art and future directions

Bronchiectasis is a clinical and radiological diagnosis associated with cough, sputum production and recurrent respiratory infections. The clinical presentation inevitably overlaps with other respiratory disorders such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In addition, 4-72% of patients with severe COPD are found to have radiological bronchiectasis on computed tomography, with similar frequencies (20-30%) now being reported in cohorts with severe or uncontrolled asthma. Co-diagnosis of bronchiectasis with another airway disease is associated with increased lung inflammation, frequent exacerbations, worse lung function and higher mortality. In addition, many patients with all three disorders have chronic rhinosinusitis and upper airway disease, resulting in a complex "mixed airway" phenotype.The management of asthma, bronchiectasis, COPD and upper airway diseases has traditionally been outlined in separate guidelines for each individual disorder. Recognition that the majority of patients have one or more overlapping pathologies requires that we re-evaluate how we treat airway disease. The concept of treatable traits promotes a holistic, pathophysiology-based approach to treatment rather than a syndromic approach and may be more appropriate for patients with overlapping features.Here, we review the current clinical definition, diagnosis, management and future directions for the overlap between bronchiectasis and other airway diseases.

The Role of Macrolides in Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRSsNP and CRSwNP)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We assess the literature on the pharmacokinetics, indications, important considerations, and effectiveness of long-term, low-dose macrolide antibiotics in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

RECENT FINDINGS

The key to effective implementation of macrolide therapy in CRS is appropriate patient selection. Macrolides have demonstrated the most benefit in Th1-mediated non-eosinophilic CRS when used for durations of at least 3 months. Macrolide antibiotics have demonstrated great benefit when used for their anti-inflammatory or immunomodulatory properties, which include the blockage of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)-8 and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). They have been used in CRS patients not responding to traditional corticosteroid-based treatment regimens, but appear to be most effective specifically in Th1-mediated non-eosinophilic CRS in long durations and low doses. Further research is needed to better identify characteristics known to correlate with macrolide response so early directed therapy can be implemented.

The role of infection and antibiotics in chronic rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the current understanding of the role of infection and antibiotics in chronic rhinosinusitis.

REVIEW METHODS

PubMed literature search.

RESULTS

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in adults is an inflammatory condition and the role of infection is unclear. Biofilms are present in both CRS and normal patients so their role in CRS is unknown. Sinus cultures in CRS demonstrate a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria but may be hard to interpret due to contaminating nasal flora. Staphylococcus aureus is common in CRS patients but also present in 20-30% of nasal cultures in the normal population; eradicating this organism did not lead to symptom improvement versus placebo in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In CRS patients who develop an episode of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS), bacteria typical of ARS can generally be cultured and require short-course treatment. For CRS, topical antibacterial or antifungal agents have shown no benefit over placebo in RCTs, although RCTs of topical antibacterial agents have been small. Oral macrolides and doxycycline, antibiotics with anti-inflammatory properties, are the only systemic antibiotics that have been evaluated in RCTs. One RCT found 3 weeks of doxycycline beneficial in patients with polyps but follow up was short (<3 months); RCTs of prolonged macrolide therapy have produced mixed results, and most show no benefit after cessation of therapy. Long-term antibiotic therapy may produce side effects and select increasingly resistant flora. The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery guidelines recommend against treatment of CRS with antifungal agents but do not comment on the role of antibacterial treatment.

CONCLUSION

The role of infection in CRS is unknown, and the only well-defined role for antibiotics is for treatment of ARS episodes or their infectious complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Recent advances in the surgical management of rhinosinusitis

Rhinosinusitis affects a significant portion of the US population, and its management imposes a substantial burden on the healthcare system. The treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis includes initial medical management prior to consideration of surgical intervention. However, if surgery does become necessary, several factors must be considered in order to optimize outcomes. This review evaluates surgical patient selection, perioperative medical management, and the extent of operative intervention, with the goal of improving surgical results, decreasing the need for revision surgery, and enhancing the patient's quality of life. Specific variations in patient genotypes and phenotypes will be further explored with regard to their implications on surgical outcomes. Additionally, the evidence behind pre- and post-operative antibiotic and steroid use will be evaluated. Finally, we will review evolving surgical tools and techniques that are currently being utilized for the treatment of specific subsets of rhinosinusitis.

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.