Role of preoperative versus postoperative itraconazole in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:545-551, 2024.

Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis in Europe: Literature Review and Own Experience

Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is primary, Th2-mediated, chronic rhinosinusitis, which is diagnosed when the criteria defined by Bent and Khun are met. The disease is most common in countries located in the subtropical and tropical regions characterized by high temperatures and high levels of humidity, which favour the wider occurrence of fungi in the environment. The presence of specific IgE antibodies directed against fungal allergens, which is one of the diagnostic criteria, proves the systemic nature of the disease and allows one to distinguish AFRS from eosinophilic fungal rhinosinusitis. There is no unified treatment method for AFRS described in the literature, and relapses are common. Sinus surgery remains the treatment of choice. Oral and topical steroid therapy plays an important role in the treatment process. The effectiveness of antifungal treatment and immunotherapy is unclear. Biological treatment, the results of which are promising, has raised great hopes. The aim of this study was to reveal how often AFRS occurs in European countries, what environmental factors influence its development, and how important it is to specify its diagnostic criteria and treatment methods. We present an overview of the available literature. In addition, we share our own experience and describe two cases of AFRS diagnosed and treated at our centre.

A prospective study comparing itraconazole alone versus systemic steroids alone as adjuncts to topical steroids in the post-operative management of allergic fungal rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of itraconazole and systemic steroids as an adjuvant to topical steroids in post-operative patients with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) using both subjective and objective outcome measurements.

DESIGN

A prospective comparative study.

SETTING

A tertiary care centre.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty patients diagnosed with AFRS were included. Patients with chronic systemic illness and those undergoing revision surgery were excluded. Post-operative patients were divided into two groups of 30 each which received itraconazole 400 mg OD or methylprednisolone in tapering doses over 6 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcomes were measured at the end of 6 weeks-Kupferberg endoscopic staging, absolute eosinophilic count (AEC), serum immunoglobulin (IgE), and Sino Nasal Outcome Test-20 scores.

RESULTS

Our study showed no statistical significance in outcomes between the two groups treated with itraconazole and methylprednisolone regarding recurrence, AEC, IgE and quality of life assessment (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Itraconazole was comparable to methylprednisolone in preventing disease recurrence in the post-operative management of AFRS. It may be a viable alternative to replacing systemic steroids where the latter may be contraindicated. Itraconazole given at a dose of 400 mg once daily for 6 weeks was a safe dose.

New Developments in Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis Pathophysiology and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is an endotype of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps characterized by eosinophilic mucin laden with fungal hyphae entrapped in expanded sinus cavities with an exaggerated hypersensitivity to fungal elements. The last decade has elucidated fungi-driven inflammatory pathways contributing to the pathophysiology of chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases. In addition, novel therapeutic biologic options have become available for CRS over the last several years.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current literature examining AFRS, focusing on recent developments in our understanding of its pathophysiology and implications for treatment options.

METHODS

Review article.

RESULTS

Fungi-driven respiratory inflammation has been linked to fungal proteinases and toxin activity. In addition, AFRS patients demonstrate a local sinonasal immunodeficiency in antimicrobial peptides and hence limited antifungal activity, along with an exaggerated type 2 inflammatory response, highlighting a possible imbalanced type 1, type 2, and type 3 profile. The elucidation of these dysregulated molecular pathways has highlighted novel potential therapeutic targets. As such, the clinical management of AFRS, which once included surgery and extended courses of oral corticosteroids, is transitioning away from long courses of oral corticosteroids to incorporate novel delivery mechanisms of topical therapeutic targets and biologics for recalcitrant disease.

CONCLUSION

AFRS is an endotype of CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) for which the molecular pathways leading to its inflammatory dysfunction are beginning to be illuminated. In addition to affecting treatment options, these understandings may shape necessary changes to diagnostic criteria and the extrapolated effects of environmental changes on AFRS. More critically, a better appreciation of fungi-driven inflammatory pathways may have implications for the understanding of broader CRS inflammation.

Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis in Saudi Arabia: A Review of Recent Literature

Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) has been considered an enigma since it was first described four decades ago. Previous research has found that AFRS has multiple definitions and a poorly understood pathogenesis because it overlaps with other conditions and necessitates meticulous work and multiple diagnostic modalities to confirm the diagnosis. However, despite the expansion of medical and surgical treatments, recurrence still occurs. In this review, the recent literature on AFRS cases in Saudi Arabia with relevance to its epidemiology, diagnosis, and management was studied and compared with international data. PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched for original research and review articles with local data. There is an evident paucity and contradiction between local studies regarding the epidemiology, diagnostic methods, and management of AFRS. Hence, well-defined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed for the treatment of this chronic recurrent disease.

A rare case of allergic fungal rhinosinusitis in Indonesian elderly: A case report and diagnostic procedure

Background

Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is a rare case.

Case presentation

A 63-year-old-man presented right nasal congestion one year ago. There was a polyp in the right nasal cavity supported CTScan showed a solid mass with central hyperattenuating of ±8.4 × 2.4 × 4.4 cm. Total IgE value was 1,227 IU/ml, while Aspergillus specific IgE and Mucorous specific IgE using the micro-Elisa technique were negative or less than 0.35 IU/ml. The skin prick test was positive on exposure to house dust, cotton, chicken meat, and cow's milk. Mucosal polypoid and allergic mucin were found during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). Histopathology showed inflammatory cells of eosinophils.

Discussion

These results lead to a diagnosis of AFRS according to the Bent and Kuhn criteria. The highest incidence rate is in adolescents and young adults but it occurs in the elderly. So, some of the signs and symptoms of AFRS in adolescents and young adults do not appear.

Conclusion

AFRS can only be diagnosed during FESS when mucins are found, this case appear in the elderly to be very interesting.

•Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is a rare case in otorhinolaryngology.

•Diagnosis of AFRS can only be obtained during functional endoscopy sinus surgery (FESS).

•Hypersensitivity type 1, polyp nasi, typical CT Scan finding, and mucin during FESS were found.

Optimal Management of Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis

Introduction

Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is a chronic disorder with significant morbidity and a high recurrence rate needing long-term follow-up. Even after its first description many decades ago, there is still considerable uncertainty about the management of this condition.

Description

In this chapter, we breakdown the topic “Optimal management of allergic fungal rhinosinusitis” into sub-headings in order to discuss the latest research and available literature under each topic in great detail. Every attempt has been made to incorporate the highest level of evidence that was available at the time of writing.

Summary

Pre-operative diagnosis and further management prior to surgery is important. Steroids help in reducing inflammation and help improve the surgical field. Surgery remains the mainstay in the management of this condition along with long-term medical management. Oral steroids are reserved for acute flare-ups in the background of associated lung concerns. Oral and topical antifungal agents have no role in the control of the disease. Biological agents are being prescribed predominantly by respiratory physician colleagues, mainly for the control of the chest-related issues rather than for sinus disease. Immunotherapy as an adjunct with surgery is promising.

Conclusion

AFRS is a disease with many variables and a wide range of symptomatic presentation. It takes a keen clinician to identify the disease and subsequently manage the condition. Treatment involves long-term follow-up with early detection of recurrence or flare-ups. Any of the mentioned modalities of management may be employed to effectively control the condition, and treatment protocols will have to be tailor-made to suit each individual patient. Various medications and drugs such as Manuka honey, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, hydrogen peroxide and betadine rinses appear to be promising. More robust studies need to be undertaken to ascertain their routine use in clinical practice.

Isolated fronto-ethmoidal allergic fungal rhinosinusitis: case report and review of the literature

Background and aim of the work: Fungal rhinosinusitis (FRS) is a clinical entity characterized by the presence of fungi within sino-nasal cavities that may occur in patients with normal or defective immunity. Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is a form of non-invasive FRS that affects patients with an abnormal immuno-mediated response to fungal antigens. This article describes a case of isolated fronto-ethmoidal AFRS. Methods: A 20-year old male patient presented with a history of a left nasal respiratory obstruction and allergic oculorhinitis. CT scans showed a polypoid mass in the left nasal cavity and opacification of the left ethmoid sinus, frontal recess and frontal sinus with hyperdense component. The patient underwent functional endonasal sinus surgery (FESS) with removal of nasal polyps from the left nasal cavity and of cheesy-like material and dense mucus from the left ethmoid and frontal sinus. Histological examination showed presence of fungal hyphae within the allergic mucus; a diagnosis of AFRS was made. Results: Follow up at 14 months showed no signs of recurrence. Conclusions: The AFRS case reported herein is characterized by isolated unilateral fronto-ethmoid involvement, a rare presentation. Endoscopic nasal treatment was effective with complete patient recovery. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Topical and systemic antifungal therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This review adds to a series of reviews looking at primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and 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. Antifungals have been suggested as a treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic and topical antifungal agents in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, including those with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) and, if possible, AFRS exclusively.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 17 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a two-week follow-up period comparing topical or systemic antifungals with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment, (c) other pharmacological interventions or (d) a different antifungal agent. We did not include post-surgical antifungal use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the significant adverse effects of hepatic toxicity (systemic antifungals). Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse effects of gastrointestinal disturbance (systemic antifungals) and epistaxis, headache or local discomfort (topical antifungals). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (490 adult participants). The presence of nasal polyps on examination was an inclusion criterion in three studies, an exclusion criterion in one study and the remaining studies included a mixed population. No studies specifically investigated the effect of antifungals in patients with AFRS.Topical antifungal treatment versus placebo or no interventionWe included seven studies (437 participants) that used amphotericin B (six studies; 383 participants) and one that used fluconazole (54 participants). Different delivery methods, volumes and concentrations were used.Four studies reported disease-specific health-related quality of life using a range of instruments. We did not meta-analyse the results due to differences in the instruments used, and measurement and reporting methods. At the end of treatment (one to six months) none of the studies reported statistically significant differences between the groups (low-quality evidence - we are uncertain about the result).Two studies reported disease severity using patient-reported symptom scores. Meta-analysis was not possible. At the end of treatment (8 to 13 weeks) one study showed no difference and the second found that patients in the placebo group had less severe symptoms (very low-quality evidence - we are very uncertain about the result).In terms of adverse effects, topical antifungals may lead to more local irritation compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 8.62; 312 participants; 5 studies; low-quality evidence) but little or no difference in epistaxis (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.63; 225 participants; 4 studies, low-quality evidence) or headache (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.63; 195 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies found a difference in generic health-related quality of life (one study) or endoscopic score (five studies) between the treatment groups. Three studies investigated CT scan; two found no difference between the groups and one found a significant decrease in the mean percentage of air space occluded, favouring the antifungal group.Systemic antifungal treatment versus placebo or no treatmentOne study (53 participants) comparing terbinafine tablets against placebo reported that there may be little or no difference between the groups in disease-specific health-related quality of life or disease severity score (both low-quality evidence). Systemic antifungals may lead to more hepatic toxicity events (RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 78.60) but fewer gastrointestinal disturbances (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.36), compared to placebo, although the evidence was of low quality.This study did not find a difference in CT scan score between the groups. Generic health-related quality of life and endoscopic score were not measured.Other comparisonsWe found no studies that compared antifungal agents against other treatments for chronic rhinosinusitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very low quality of the evidence, it is uncertain whether or not the use of topical or systemic antifungals has an impact on patient outcomes in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis compared with placebo or no treatment. Studies including specific subgroups (i.e. AFRS) are lacking.