Topical therapy in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis:

O. K. Efficacy of Normal Saline Nasal Spray Added to Standard Treatment Regimen of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Chronic Rhinosinusitis is characterized by inflammation of lining of nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage/discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of smell sensation, generally treated with medical therapy initially. Nasal saline irrigation is one of the treatment modalities commonly used to improve symptoms. The aim was to evaluate efficacy of adding normal saline nasal spray to standard treatment regimen of chronic rhinosinusitis. A randomized, controlled, single blinded study with 40 chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Study group was prescribed Normal Saline nasal spray (1 puff in each nostril, thrice daily) along with topical corticosteroids (Mometasone furoate nasal spray, 1 puff in each nostril, twice daily; 1 puff = 50 µg), and oral antibiotics (Amoxicillin + Clavulanic acid, 30 mg/kg, twice daily), and the control group was only prescribed topical corticosteroids and oral antibiotics. Patients were evaluated using Lund-Kennedy endoscopic scores and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test before and after treatment. There was a significant improvement in LKES, with pre-treatment and post-treatment scores for control group being 5.35 ± 2.43 vs 3.70 ± 1.95 respectively (p = 0.0116), whereas for test group, pre-treatment and post-treatment scores were 8.15 ± 2.62 vs 6.05 ± 2.04 respectively (p = 0.0037). Improvement in SNOT-22 scores were observed as well, with pre-treatment and post-treatment scores for control group being 38.90 ± 12.01 vs 25.70 ± 9.21 respectively (p = 0.0002), whereas for test group, pre-treatment and post-treatment scores were 49.85 ± 11.38 vs 31.55 ± 9.91 respectively (p < 0.0001). The study suggests that there is additional benefit in usage of normal saline in form of symptomatic relief as well as clinical improvement.

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.

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.

Efficacy of nasal irrigation with hypertonic saline on chronic rhinosinusitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Currently, several different concentrations of saline are recommended for use in nasal irrigation. Increasing studies show that nasal irrigation with hypertonic saline is more effective than traditional saline in the treatment of rhinosinusitis, but there have been few systematic analyses of the effect of nasal irrigation with hypertonic saline on chronic rhinosinusitis.

Objective

We sought to compare the effects of hypertonic saline and isotonic saline in the treatment of rhinosinusitis in order to provide a reference for clinical nasal irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis treatment.

Methods

Medline, cochrane library, EMBASE, PubMed, Chinese biomedical journal database, China national knowledge infrastructure, Wanfang database, and other databases were searched, and the searching was supplemented by manual searches for relevant references to treatment of rhinosinusitis by saline nasal irrigation. The last retrieval date was March 2018. The included studies were evaluated for quality, and data were extracted for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3.

Results

Seven studies were included. Effects favoring hypertonic saline on nasal symptoms were greater in 4 subgroups. These were (1) patients with nasal secretion (SMD = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.00; p < 0.01), (2) patients with congestion (SMD = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.00; p < 0.01), (3) patients with headache (SMD = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.38, 1.26; p < 0.01), (4) patients with overall symptomatic relief (SMD = 1.63; 95% CI: 0.83, 2.44; p < 0.01). However, no difference was shown in smell improvement (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI: −0.65, 1.59; p = 0.41) and radiologic scores improvement (SMD = 2.44; 95% CI: -3.14, 8.02; p < 0.01). Besides, hypertonic saline showed greater improvement in mucociliary clearance time scores than did the isotonic saline group (SMD = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.78, 1.60; p < 0.01). Hypertonic saline brought greater minor adverse effects.

Conclusion

Compared with isotonic saline, hypertonic saline nasal irrigation for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis is significantly more effective and has mild side effects in improving nasal symptoms and ciliary movement, but there is no significant difference in imaging findings and smell improvement. Although hypertonic saline is worthy of widespread use in clinical practice, it is still necessary to further study the exact manner and concentration of nasal irrigation.

Topical Irrigations for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

As the understanding of the primary cause of chronic rhinosinusitis has shifted away from infection toward inflammation, topical corticosteroid sprays and saline irrigations have become mainstays of treatment. Topical corticosteroid irrigations are recommended particularly in the postoperative setting, but further research on their effect and possible hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression is needed. The popularity of topical antibiotics has subsequently waned with their use reserved for recalcitrant cases. Further research is needed on the effect of topical antifungals in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. Topical alternative therapies that target biofilms have gained increasing recognition, and investigations on topical probiotics are on the horizon.

How does sinus surgery affect topical irrigation distribution?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current article reviews the literature on the distribution of nasal irrigation in the treatment of chronic sinusitis, especially in how sinus surgery and irrigation techniques affect its delivery to the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nasal irrigation has become a useful tool in the treatment of chronic sinusitis. Used after endoscopic surgery of the paranasal sinuses, irrigation has shown to be effective in improving edema and removing crusts and secretions in that place. However, some relevant points have been considered in the surgical technique and in the postoperative period to improve irrigation access to the paranasal sinuses such as the amplitude of the sinus ostial opening, irrigation volume and device used, as well as head position during irrigation.

SUMMARY

Postoperative lavage of the paranasal sinus is a recognized adjuvant in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis, reducing morbidity and improving local healing, besides allowing the association of topical medications that can be carried to the paranasal sinuses along with the saline increasing the reach of these drugs. Detailed attention to the techniques described in this review improves the distribution of irrigation in the paranasal sinuses after sinus surgery and considerably increases the efficacy of this therapy.

Efficacy of nasal irrigation with 200 μg/mL amphotericin B after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown controversial results of topical amphotericin B (AMB) nasal irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 200 μg/mL AMB nasal irrigation as an adjuvant therapy after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS).

METHODS

Patients with CRS who had received FESS for treatment were recruited and assigned to 1 of 2 groups at random at 1 month postsurgery. In the AMB group patients received nasal irrigation with 200 μg/mL of AMB for 2 months on a daily basis. In the control group normal saline irrigation was given instead. Before FESS and before and after nasal irrigation, patients' sinonasal symptoms were assessed through a questionnaire that was a Taiwanese version of the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (TWSNOT-22). In addition, patients received endoscopic examination, acoustic rhinometry, smell test, saccharine transit test, and bacterial cultures obtained from their middle meati.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients completed the study between December 2014 and January 2017. Among them, 37 received nasal irrigation with AMB solution, and 36 with saline. In the AMB group, scores of TWSNOT-22 dropped significantly after irrigation compared with before (p = 0.005). In the control group, TWSNOT-22 scores did not changed after irrigation (p = 0.451). However, there were no significant differences in TWSNOT-22, endoscopic score, smell test, saccharine transit test, and bacterial culture rate after irrigation between 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that in post-FESS care, nasal irrigation with 200 μg/mL of AMB did not provide additional benefit compared with saline irrigation.

Chronic rhinosinusitis: Endotypes, biomarkers, and treatment response

It is increasingly recognized that chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) comprises a spectrum of different diseases with distinct clinical presentations and pathogenic mechanisms. Defining the distinct phenotypes and endotypes of CRS affects prognosis and, most importantly, is necessary as the basis for making therapeutic decisions. The need for individualized definitions of pathogenic mechanisms before initiating therapy extends to virtually all therapeutic considerations. This is clearly crucial with antibiotics, where, barring an influence from their off-target anti-inflammatory pharmacologic effects, an understanding of the role of the individual biome predicts likelihood of therapeutic benefit. However, this need for identifying individual phenotypes and endotypes also extends to the agent that is currently considered the mainstay of treatment of CRS, specifically glucocorticoids. As with asthma, it is recognized that a large minority of patients with CRS have a steroid-resistant phenotype, identification of which will preclude use of these agents with their potential side effects. Identification of endotypes is also becoming increasingly imperative because targeted biotherapeutic agents, such as anti-IgE and anti-cytokine antibodies, are becoming available. These agents are likely to benefit patients in whom the targeted mediator is not only expressed but demonstrably driving a central mechanism in that patient. In summary, the treatment of CRS is at an exciting crossroad. On the positive side, numerous therapeutics are in development that seem likely to have a positive effect in our patients with this condition. The challenge is that these therapies will require targeted individualized treatments based on identifying subjects with the relevant endotype.

Chronic Rhinosinusitis and the Evolving Understanding of Microbial Ecology in Chronic Inflammatory Mucosal Disease

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) encompasses a heterogeneous group of debilitating chronic inflammatory sinonasal diseases. Despite considerable research, the etiology of CRS remains poorly understood, and debate on potential roles of microbial communities is unresolved. Modern culture-independent (molecular) techniques have vastly improved our understanding of the microbiology of the human body. Recent studies that better capture the full complexity of the microbial communities associated with CRS reintroduce the possible importance of the microbiota either as a direct driver of disease or as being potentially involved in its exacerbation. This review presents a comprehensive discussion of the current understanding of bacterial, fungal, and viral associations with CRS, with a specific focus on the transition to the new perspective offered in recent years by modern technology in microbiological research. Clinical implications of this new perspective, including the role of antimicrobials, are discussed in depth. While principally framed within the context of CRS, this discussion also provides an analogue for reframing our understanding of many similarly complex and poorly understood chronic inflammatory diseases for which roles of microbes have been suggested but specific mechanisms of disease remain unclear. Finally, further technological advancements on the horizon, and current pressing questions for CRS microbiological research, are considered.

Isotonic saline nasal irrigation in clinical practice: a literature review

Abstract Introduction: Nasal instillation of saline solution has been used as part of the treatment of patients with upper respiratory tract diseases. Despite its use for a number of years, factors such as the amount of saline solution to be used, degree of salinity, method and frequency of application have yet to be fully explained. Objective: Review the reported outcomes of saline nasal irrigation in adults with allergic rhinitis, acute or chronic sinusitis and after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS), and provide evidence to assist physiotherapists in decision making in clinical practice. Methods: A search was conducted of the Pubmed and Cochrane Library databases between 2007 and 2014. A combination of the following descriptors was used as a search strategy: nasal irrigation, nasal lavage, rhinitis, sinusitis, saline, saline solution. Results: Eight clinical trials were included, analyzed according to participant diagnosis. Conclusion: The evidence found was heterogeneous, but contributed to elucidating uncertainties regarding the use of nasal lavage in the clinical practice of physical therapy, such as the protocols used.

Nasal Rinsing with an Atomized Spray Improves Mucociliary Clearance and Clinical Symptoms during Peak Grass Pollen Season

Background

Nasal rinsing with an atomizer spray was found to be effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Two parameters express the nasal functions: (1) mucociliary clearance (MCC), and (2) the pH and its stability. MCC is the main factor that defines the time of pollen transition on the nasal mucosa and, therefore, the amount of the allergen glycoprotein elution.

Objective

We hypothesized that the nasal wash efficacy could be due to the reduction of contact time of the grass pollen on the nasal mucosa (improving MCC).

Methods

Forty patients with seasonal grass pollen oculorhinitis were randomized in two groups: 20 received three times daily nasal rinsing with hypertonic solution buffered to pH 6.1, before and during the peak pollen season in 2015 (active group), and another 20 patients were allocated to the control group and received no nasal treatment. The daily symptoms score and the use of oral antihistamines when required were evaluated during the grass pollen peak season. All the patients completed the study.

Results

In comparison with the control group, in the active group, a significant decrease of both nasal symptoms (p = 0.01) and consumption of antihistamines (p = 0.035) was found. Furthermore, the MCC was significantly worse (p = 0.011) only in the control group.

Conclusion

The nasal treatment maintained the efficiency of the MCC in the patients in the active group, who showed a significant reduction of symptoms and medication score. The MCC decreased the transit time of the pollen on the nasal mucosa, which favored an elution of the allergenic proteins.

Problem-based learning discussion: Medical treatment of pediatric chronic rhinosinusitis

This problem-based learning case focused on the approach to evaluation and management of a 5-year old girl who was "always sick" with sinus infections. The discussion unfolds in a "real life" scenario, i.e., based on information available to the clinician initially and after the acquisition of laboratory data, and, ultimately, after sinus surgery. Emphasis is placed on the differential diagnosis of the patient's symptoms, discussion of the initial management strategy for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), evolution from acute rhinosinusitis to CRS, the prevalence of and differential diagnosis of nasal polyps in children, treatment considerations specific for CRS with nasal polyps, the significance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa sinus infection, the significance of an abnormal sweat chloride test in a young child with nasal polyposis, special considerations in children with CRS who have cystic fibrosis, treatment considerations after endoscopic sinus surgery, and, finally, prognostic factors that impact the outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery. This problem-based learning case highlights many facets of managing refractory CRS in children.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray: a systematic review

The inflammatory diseases of the nose, rhino-pharynx and paranasal sinuses (allergic and non allergic rhinitis, NARES; rhinosinusitis with/without nasal polyposis, adenoidal hypertrophy with/without middle ear involvement) clinically manifest themselves with symptoms and complications severely affecting quality of life and health care expenditure.

Intranasal administration of corticosteroids, being fast, simple, and not requiring cooperation, is the preferred way to treat the patients, to optimize their quality of life, at the same time minimizing the risk of exacerbations and complications.

Among the different topical steroids available on the market, we performed a comparative analysis in terms of effectiveness and safety between mometasone furoate (MF) and its main competitors.

Searching through Pub Med and Google Scholar and using as entries “mometasone furoate”, “rhinitis”, “sinusitis”, “asthma”, “polyposis”, “otitis media with effusion”, and “adenoid hypertrophy” we found 344 articles, 300 of which met the eligibility criteria.

Taking into account relevance and date of publication, a sample of 40 articles was considered for the review.

MF effectiveness for treatment and/or prophylaxis of nasal symptoms in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis has been fully established with a level of evidence Ia.

Even though it has not been assessed for MF in particular, topical steroids are the most appropriate treatment in mixed rhinitis and NARES.

In acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) evidences support their use as mono-therapy or as adjuvant to antibiotics for reducing the recurrence rate, and decrease the usage of related prescriptions and medical consultations.

In chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with Nasal polyposis, MF reduces polyps size, nasal congestion, improves quality of life and sense of smell and it is also effective in the treatment of daytime cough.

The topical use of MF has great efficacy in the management of adenoidal hypertrophy and otitis media of atopic children.

As regards the safety, MF has demonstrated an excellent safety profile: pregnant women can safely use it; no systemic effects on growth velocity and adrenal suppression have been shown; no changes in epithelial thickness or atrophy have been observed after long term administration of the drug.

Conclusions: MF has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of the inflammatory diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses; when compared to its competitors it shows a greater symptom control; it is a reliable treatment in the long term thanks not only to its proven efficacy, but also to its safety being on the market since more than 17 years.

The impact of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia on the upper respiratory tract

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is an autosomal recessive genetic condition affecting the function of motile cilia. The upper respiratory tract is lined with ciliated epithelium and hence a hallmark of PCD is the development, from the neonatal period onwards, of persisting secretion retention and suppurative infection in the middle ear, nose and facial sinuses [1]. This review aims to remind the clinician involved in the care of a patient with PCD of the complexities of making the diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and chronic otitis media with effusion (ChOME), the morbidity associated with CRS and ChOME and of current evidence of best practice for the management of these conditions.

Drug delivery to paranasal sinuses using pulsating aerosols

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is the major disorder of the upper airways, affecting about 10-15% of the total population. Topical treatment regimens show only modest efficacy, because drug delivery to the posterior nose and paranasal sinuses is still a challenge. Therefore, there is a high rate of functional endoscopic sinus surgery in CRS patients. Most nasally administered aerosolized drugs, like nasal pump sprays, are efficiently filtered by the nasal valve and do not reach the posterior nasal cavity and the sinuses, which are poorly ventilated. However, as highlighted in this review, sinus ventilation and paranasal aerosol delivery can be achieved by using pulsating airflow, offering new topical treatment options for nasal disorders. Radioaerosol inhalation and imaging studies in nasal casts and in healthy volunteers have shown 4-6% of the nasally administered dose within the sinuses. In CRS patients, significant aerosol deposition in the sinus cavities was reported before sinus surgery. After surgery, deposition increased to the amount observed in healthy volunteers. In addition, compared with nasal pump sprays, retention kinetics of the radiolabel deposited in the nasal cavity was prolonged, both in healthy volunteers and in CRS patients. These efficiencies may be sufficient for topical aerosol therapies of sinus disorders and, due to the prolonged retention kinetics, may reduce application modes, but have to be proven in future clinical trials. Pulsating aerosols may offer additional new topical treatment options of nasal and sinus disorders before as well as after surgery.

Medical management of allergic fungal rhinosinusitis following endoscopic sinus surgery: an evidence-based review and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is a subset of polypoid chronic rhinosinusitis that is characterized by the presence of eosinophilic mucin with fungal hyphae within the sinuses and a Type I hypersensitivity to fungi. The treatment of AFRS usually involves surgery in combination with medical therapies to keep the disease in a dormant state. However, what constitutes an optimal medical regimen is still controversial. Hence, the purpose of this article is to provide an evidence-based approach for the medical management of AFRS.

METHODS

A systemic review of the literature on the medical management of AFRS was performed using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review Databases up to March 15, 2013. The inclusion criteria were as follows: patients >18 years old; AFRS as defined by Bent and Kuhn; post-sinus surgery; studies with a clearly defined end point to evaluate the effectiveness of medical therapy in postoperative AFRS patients.

RESULTS

This review identified and assessed 6 medical modalities for AFRS in the literature: oral steroids; topical steroids; oral antifungals; topical antifungals; immunotherapy; and leukotriene modulators.

CONCLUSION

Based on available evidence in the literature, postoperative systemic and standard topical nasal steroids are recommended in the medical management of AFRS. Nonstandard topical nasal steroids, oral antifungals, and immunotherapy are options in cases of refractory AFRS. No recommendations can be provided for topical antifungals and leukotriene modulators due to insufficient clinical research reported in the literature.

Topical drug delivery in chronic rhinosinusitis patients before and after sinus surgery using pulsating aerosols

OBJECTIVES

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common chronic disease of the upper airways and has considerable impact on quality of life. Topical delivery of drugs to the paranasal sinuses is challenging, therefore the rate of surgery is high. This study investigates the delivery efficiency of a pulsating aerosol in comparison to a nasal pump spray to the sinuses and the nose in healthy volunteers and in CRS patients before and after sinus surgery.

METHODS

(99m)Tc-DTPA pulsating aerosols were applied in eleven CRSsNP patients without nasal polyps before and after sinus surgery. In addition, pulsating aerosols were studied in comparison to nasal pump sprays in eleven healthy volunteers. Total nasal and frontal, maxillary and sphenoidal sinus aerosol deposition and lung penetration were assessed by anterior and lateral planar gamma camera imaging.

RESULTS

In healthy volunteers nasal pump sprays resulted in 100% nasal, non-significant sinus and lung deposition, while pulsating aerosols resulted 61.3+/-8.6% nasal deposition and 38.7% exit the other nostril. 9.7+/-2.0 % of the nasal dose penetrated into maxillary and sphenoidal sinuses. In CRS patients, total nasal deposition was 56.7+/-13.3% and 46.7+/-12.7% before and after sinus surgery, respectively (p<0.01). Accordingly, maxillary and sphenoidal sinus deposition was 4.8+/-2.2% and 8.2+/-3.8% of the nasal dose (p<0.01). Neither in healthy volunteers nor in CRS patients there was significant dose in the frontal sinuses.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to nasal pump sprays, pulsating aerosols can deliver significant doses into posterior nasal spaces and paranasal sinuses, providing alternative therapy options before and after sinus surgery. Patients with chronic lung diseases based on clearance dysfunction may also benefit from pulsating aerosols, since these diseases also manifest in the upper airways.