Efficacy of an aqueous and a powder formulation of nasal budesonide compared in patients with nasal polyps

Intranasal Spray Characteristics for Best Drug Delivery in Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVES

To determine parameter combinations for effective drug delivery of intranasal spray steroids to the ostiomeatal complex (OMC) and maxillary sinus (MS) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

METHODS

Each patient's sinonasal cavity was reconstructed from computed tomography scans. Intranasal airflow and drug particle transport were simulated using computational fluid dynamic modeling. Airflow simulations were performed at 15 Pascal inhalation pressure. Intranasal spray particles of 1-100 μm were simulated at release speeds of 1, 5, and 10 m/s from 6 release locations (Bottom, Center, Top, Lateral, Lateral-Bottom, and Lateral-Top) at a nozzle insertion depth of 15 mm. Drug delivery simulations were performed in the head tilted forward position.

RESULTS

Maximal OMC deposition was 0.78%-12.44%, while maximal MS deposition was 0.02%-1.03% across all simulations. In general, particles between 6 and 10 μm had the best OMC (at 1 m/s particle velocity) and MS (at 10 m/s particle velocity) deposition. Particles ranging from 21 to 30 μm also had superior OMC deposition. The lateral and lateral-top spray release locations produced maximum OMC deposition, but no one release location demonstrated an increase in MS deposition.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary study suggests that it is challenging to determine a common set of intranasal spray parameter combinations for effective drug delivery to the OMC and MSs. Although drug particle size and spray particle velocity seem to impact particle deposition patterns, spray release location appears to vary with anatomical differences between subjects, particularly when the MS is the target location for particle deposition. Laryngoscope, 133:1036-1043, 2023.

Effect of postoperative systemic prednisolone on short-term and long-term outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: A multi-centered randomized clinical trial

Introduction

The objective of this study was to determine whether postoperative additive systemic steroid administration in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) impacted selected endoscopic, subjective and objective outcome measures.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, noninferiority multicenter trial of n=106 patients with CRSwNP. All patients underwent primary functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) followed by topical nasal steroids. Patients were randomized to a systemic steroid or placebo for 1 month. Patients were followed up for 2 years over 9 time points. The primary outcome measures were the differences between groups with respect to the nasal polyp score (NPS) and sinonasal quality of life (SNQoL). Secondary outcome measures included interactions with respect to the Lund-Kennedy score (LKS), sinonasal symptoms, general quality of life (GQoL), 16-item odor identification test scores, recurrence rates, need for revision surgery and mucus biomarker levels.

Results

106 patients were randomized to either the placebo or the systemic steroid group (n=53 per group). Postoperative systemic steroids were not superior to placebo with respect to all primary (p= 0.077) and secondary outcome measures (p>0.05 for all). Reported adverse events were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the addition of postoperative systemic steroids after primary FESS did not confer a benefit over topical steroid nasal spray alone with respect to NPS, SNQOL, LKS, GQOL, sinonasal symptoms, smell scores, recurrence rates, the need for revision surgery or biomarkers over a short-term follow-up of up to 9 months and a long-term follow-up of up to 24 months in CRSwNP patients. Functional endoscopic surgery did, however, show a strong effect on all outcome measures, which remained relatively stable up to the endpoint at 2 years.

Topical corticosteroids for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: GRADE systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is associated with a significant disease burden. The optimal use of and administration route for intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) when managing CRSwNP are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We systematically synthesized the evidence addressing INCS for CRSwNP.

METHODS

We searched studies archived in Medline, Embase, and Central from database inception until September 1, 2021, for randomized controlled trials comparing INCS using any delivery method to placebo or other INCS administration types. Paired reviewers screened records, abstracted data, and rated risk of bias (CLARITY revision of Cochrane Risk of Bias version 1 tool) independently and in duplicate. We synthesized the evidence for each outcome using random effects network meta-analyses. We critically appraised the evidence following the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

We analyzed 61 randomized controlled trials (7176 participants, 8 interventions). Sinusitis-related quality of life might improve with INCS rinse (mean difference [MD] -6.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.94 to -1.71) and exhalation delivery system (EDS) (MD -7.86, 95% CI -14.64 to -1.08) compared to placebo (both low certainty evidence). Nasal obstruction symptoms are likely improved when receiving INCS via stent/dressing (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.08), spray (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.41), and EDS (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.18) (all moderate to high certainty) compared to placebo. We found no important differences in adverse effects among interventions (moderate certainty for INCS spray, very low to low certainty for others).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple delivery forms of INCS are viable therapeutic options for CRSwNP, resulting in improvement of patient-important outcomes. INCS via stent, spray, and EDS appear to be beneficial across the widest range of considered outcomes.

Endoscopic grading systems for nasal polyps: are we comparing apples to oranges?

Endoscopic grading of nasal polyps (NP) is typically a coprimary endpoint in clinical trials evaluating treatments for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, a consensus on the most effective way to grade nasal polyps has not been reached. Different scales have been used, hampering the interpretation of data across trials. This review compares the characteristics of NP grading systems used in registration trials for approved NP treatments. These fundamental differences in grading systems make quantitative comparison of outcomes between trials inaccurate and potentially misleading. In lieu of a universal grading system, reporting the baseline distribution of polyp grades (unilateral and/or summed/total grades), as well as changes from baseline over time by baseline grade may help improve interpretability of outcomes and reduce inaccuracy when attempting cross-trial comparisons and making therapeutic decisions.

Yardstick for the medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory condition of the paranasal sinuses defined by classic symptoms, imaging findings, or endoscopic findings. There are a growing number of emerging pharmacologic therapies being evaluated to treat patients with CRS, some of which have gained indication status in the United States. There have not been updated treatment guidelines published in the United States however since 2014. This document is meant to serve as an updated expert consensus document for the pharmacologic management of patients with CRS. We review available data focusing on prospective clinical trials on oral and intranasal corticosteroids, nasal irrigation, biologics, antibiotics, and allergy immunotherapy for CRS both with and without nasal polyposis, including specific therapies for aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease-associated CRS and allergic fungal CRS. There are multiple options to treat CRS, and clinicians should be knowledgeable on the efficacy and risks of these available therapies. Allergists-immunologists now have various therapies available to treat patients with CRS.

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.

Medical Management Strategies in Acute and Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis, historically, has been considered to be caused by upper airway anatomical abnormalities. However, today that concept has changed, for it is now recognized as an inflammatory disorder of the nasal and sinus mucosa. Acute rhinosinusitis is usually caused by a viral infection, whereas chronic rhinosinusitis is a persistent and heterogeneous inflammatory disorder with increased expression of type 1, 2, or 17 cytokines in the nasal and sinus mucosa, similar to that which occurs in asthma. Exacerbations are caused by aeroallergens in the allergic individual and irritants, pollutants, and viral/bacterial infections in all subjects. It may be categorized by phenotypes, examples of which include chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps or chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps. Defined endotypes are based on underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Knowledge of chronic rhinosinusitis endotypes will optimize management by employing targeted medical therapies. Understanding that rhinosinusitis is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease has led to the identification of a variety of different predisposing conditions, new medical treatment options, and the concept that rhinosinusitis is primarily a medical problem.

Effect of Intranasal Corticosteroids on Secondary Sinonasal Symptoms: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Background

Intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) sprays are indicated for use in the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and include aqueous and nonaqueous formulations. Secondary symptoms of rhinitis include postnasal drip, facial pain/pressure, headache, cough, and ear fullness. The effectiveness of INCS on these specific symptoms, as well as the comparative effectiveness of aqueous and nonaqueous formulations, is poorly defined.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of aqueous versus nonaqueous INCS formulations on less common sinonasal symptoms.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted of English-language, randomized controlled trials, with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) standard. Studies that did not provide quantitative data on relief of postnasal drip, facial pain/pressure, headache, cough, and ear fullness were excluded. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study.

Results

Of the 118 studies identified, 9 met the criteria for qualitative analysis. An effect on postnasal drip was reported in 5 studies, facial pain/pressure in 2 studies, and cough in 2 studies. A reduction in a specific symptom was reported in about half of these studies, with heterogenous outcome measures. Only 1 study reported the effect of a nonaqueous formulation on a specific symptom. No studies reported an effect on aural fullness.

Conclusions

Limited data are available regarding the effectiveness of aqueous or nonaqueous INCS on secondary symptoms in adult patients with rhinitis. Further study is needed using homogenous outcome measures and direct comparison of INCS formulations.

Efficacy of Dexamethasone Versus Fluticasone Nasal Sprays in Postoperative Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps

Background

Topical nasal steroids are commonly prescribed to patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). They are found to be effective in improving symptoms and quality of life as well as reducing the incidence of nasal polyps recurrence.

Objective

We sought to determine whether a higher concentration of topical nasal steroid spray is more effective than the standard nasal steroid spray in controlling symptoms and preventing recurrence of polyps in patients with CRSwNP who underwent ESS.

Method

A double-blind randomized controlled trial was performed on patients with CRSwNP after ESS. Patients were randomized into 2 treatment groups: one received topical nasal dexamethasone 0.032% and the other, fluticasone proprionate. The 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and Lund-Kennedy nasal endoscopy scores were measured at the initiation of topical nasal steroid treatment and then at approximately 4-, 8-, and 12-week intervals.

Results

Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in the study. Eighteen patients continued using the medications prescribed to them for the duration of the study. There were 8 patients in the dexamethasone group and 10 patients in the fluticasone group. Both groups saw significant improvements in postoperative SNOT-22 and Lund-Kenney scores over time. There was no significant difference in improvement between the groups.

Conclusion

There is no significant increased benefit in using a higher dose nasal steroid spray compared to the standard dose nasal steroid spray after ESS.

Causality Assessment of Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunction Associated with Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate: Application of the Bradford Hill Criteria

Causality assessment is crucial to post-marketing pharmacovigilance and helps optimize safe and appropriate use of medicines by patients in the real world. Self-reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction are common in the general population as well as in patients with allergic rhinitis and nasal polyposis. Intranasal corticosteroids, including intranasal fluticasone propionate (INFP), are amongst the most effective drugs indicated in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and nasal polyposis. While intranasal corticosteroids are associated with olfactory and gustatory dysfunction and are currently labeled for these adverse events, causality assessment has not been performed to date. Although there is no single widely accepted method to assess causality in pharmacovigilance, the Bradford Hill criteria offer a robust and comprehensive approach because nine distinct aspects of an observed potential drug–event association are assessed. In this literature-based narrative review, Hill’s criteria were applied to determine causal inference between INFP and olfactory and gustatory dysfunction.

Opportunity and challenges of nasal powders: Drug formulation and delivery

In the field of nasal drug delivery, among the preparations defined by the European Pharmacopoeia, nasal powders facilitate the formulation of poorly water-soluble active compounds. They often display a simple composition in excipients (if any), allow for the administration of larger drug doses and enhance drug diffusion and absorption across the mucosa, improving bioavailability compared to nasal liquids. Despite the positive features, however, nasal products in this form still struggle to enter the market: the few available on the market are Onzetra Xsail® (sumatriptan) for migraine relief and, for the treatment of rhinitis, Rhinocort® Turbuhaler® (budesonide), Teijin Rhinocort® (beclomethasone dipropionate) and Erizas® (dexamethasone cipecilate). Hence, this review tries to understand why nasal powder formulations are still less common than liquid ones by analyzing whether this depends on the lack of (i) real evidence of superior therapeutic benefit of powders, (ii) therapeutic and/or commercial interest, (iii) efficient manufacturing methods or (iv) availability of suitable and affordable delivery devices. To this purpose, the reader's attention will be guided through nasal powder formulation strategies and manufacturing techniques, eventually giving up-to-date evidences of therapeutic efficacy in vivo. Advancements in the technology of insufflation devices will also be provided as nasal drug products are typical drug-device combinations.

Disrupted Odor Perception

Olfactory loss is frequent. However, in public not many people complain of that, or they are even not (fully) aware of it. This indicates that it is possible to live a life without a sense of smell, albeit it is more dangerous, less pleasant, and food tastes much less interesting. Most common causes for smell loss are sinunasal disease (chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps), acute infections of the upper airways, head trauma, and neurodegenerative disorders. In many people smell loss seems to be due to the aging process. Before treatment olfactory disorders are diagnosed according to cause with the medical history being a big portion of the diagnostic process. Olfactory disorders are in principle reversible, with a relatively high degree of spontaneous improvement in olfactory loss following infections of the upper respiratory tract. Medical treatment is according to cause. It also involves surgical approaches as well as conservative treatments including the use of corticosteroids, antibiotics, or smell training. Because today olfactory dysfunction seems to receive more attention than in previous years it can be expected that tomorrow we will have more specific and effective treatment options available.

Different types of intranasal steroids 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. Topical (intranasal) corticosteroids are used with the aim of reducing inflammation in the sinonasal mucosa in order to improve patient symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of intranasal steroids in people with chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing first-generation intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, flunisolide, budesonide) with second-generation intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. ciclesonide, fluticasone furoate, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, betamethasone sodium phosphate), or sprays versus drops, or low-dose versus high-dose intranasal corticosteroids.

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 - epistaxis (nosebleed). Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse event of local irritation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (911 participants), including four different comparisons. None of the studies evaluated our first primary outcome measure, disease-specific HRQL. Fluticasone propionate versus beclomethasone dipropionate We identified two small studies (56 participants with polyps) that evaluated disease severity and looked at the primary adverse effect: epistaxis , but no other outcomes. We cannot report any numerical data but the study authors reported no difference between the two steroids. The evidence was of very low quality. Fluticasone propionate versus mometasone furoate We identified only one study (100 participants with polyps) that evaluated disease severity (nasal symptoms scores), which reported no difference (no numerical data available). The evidence was of very low quality. High-dose versus low-dose steroidsWe included five studies (663 participants with nasal polyps), three using mometasone furoate (400 µg versus 200 µg in adults and older children, 200 µg versus 100 µg in younger children) and two using fluticasone propionate drops (800 µg versus 400 µg). We found low quality evidence relating to disease severity and nasal polyps size, with results from the high-dose and low-dose groups being similar. Although all studies reported more improvement in polyp score in the high-dose group, the significance of this is unclear due to the small size of the improvements.The primary adverse effect, epistaxis , was more common when higher doses were used (risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.54, 637 participants, moderate quality evidence). Most of the studies that contributed data to this outcome used a broad definition of epistaxis, which ranged from frank bleeding to bloody nasal discharge to flecks of blood in the mucus. Aqueous nasal spray versus aerosol spray We identified only one poorly reported study (unclear number of participants for comparison of interest, 91 between three treatment arms), in which there were significant baseline differences between the participants in the two groups. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to suggest that one type of intranasal steroid is more effective than another in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, nor that the effectiveness of a spray differs from an aerosol. We identified no studies that compared drops with spray.It is unclear if higher doses result in better symptom improvements (low quality evidence), but there was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of epistaxis as an adverse effect of treatment when higher doses were used. This included all levels of severity of epistaxis and it is likely that the proportion of events that required patients to discontinue usage is low due to the low numbers of withdrawals attributed to it. If epistaxis is limited to streaks of blood in the mucus it may be tolerated by the patient and it may be safe to continue treatment. However, it may be a factor that affects compliance.There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the different types of corticosteroid molecule or spray versus aerosol have different effects. Lower doses have similar effectiveness but fewer side effects.Clearly more research in this area is needed, with specific attention given to trial design, disease-specific health-related quality of life outcomes and evaluation of longer-term outcomes and adverse effects.

Intranasal steroids versus placebo or no intervention 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, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. The use of topical (intranasal) corticosteroids has been widely advocated for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis given the belief that inflammation is a major component of this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intranasal corticosteroids in people with chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, flunisolide, budesonide) against placebo or no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

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 - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation or other systemic adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs with a total of 2738 participants. Fourteen studies had participants with nasal polyps and four studies had participants without nasal polyps. Only one study was conducted in children. Intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention Only one study (20 adult participants without polyps) measured our primary outcome disease-specific HRQL using the Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measures-31 (RSOM-31). They reported no significant difference (numerical data not available) (very low quality evidence).Our second primary outcome, disease severity , was measured using the Chronic Sinusitis Survey in a second study (134 participants without polyps), which found no important difference (mean difference (MD) 2.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.02 to 10.70; scale 0 to 100). Another study (chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps) reported an increased chance of improvement in the intranasal corticosteroids group (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.40; 109 participants). The quality of the evidence was low.Six studies provided data on at least two of the individual symptoms used in the EPOS 2012 criteria to define chronic rhinosinusitis (nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, loss of sense of smell and facial pain/pressure). When all four symptoms in the EPOS criteria were available on a scale of 0 to 3 (higher = more severe symptoms), the average MD in change from baseline was -0.26 (95% CI -0.37 to -0.15; 243 participants; two studies; low quality evidence). Although there were more studies and participants when only nasal blockage and rhinorrhoea were considered (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.24; 1702 participants; six studies), the MD was almost identical to when loss of sense of smell was also considered (1345 participants, four studies; moderate quality evidence).When considering the results for the individual symptoms, benefit was shown in the intranasal corticosteroids group. The effect size was larger for nasal blockage (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.29; 1702 participants; six studies) than for rhinorrhoea (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.17; 1702 participants; six studies) or loss of sense of smell (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.11; 1345 participants; four studies). There was heterogeneity in the analysis for facial pain/pressure (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.02; 243 participants; two studies). The quality of the evidence was moderate for nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea and loss of sense of smell, but low for facial pain/pressure.There was an increased risk of epistaxis with intranasal corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.00; 2508 participants; 13 studies; high quality evidence).Considering our secondary outcome, general HRQL, one study (134 participants without polyps) measured this using the SF-36 and reported a statistically significant benefit only on the general health subscale. The quality of the evidence was very low.It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of local irritation (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.64; 2124 participants; 11 studies) (low quality evidence).None of the studies treated or followed up patients long enough to provide meaningful data on the risk of osteoporosis or stunted growth (children). Other comparisons We identified no other studies that compared intranasal corticosteroids plus co-intervention A versus placebo plus co-intervention A.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the evidence available was from studies in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. There is little information about quality of life (very low quality evidence). For disease severity, there seems to be improvement for all symptoms (low quality evidence), a moderate-sized benefit for nasal blockage and a small benefit for rhinorrhoea (moderate quality evidence). The risk of epistaxis is increased (high quality evidence), but these data included all levels of severity; small streaks of blood may not be a major concern for patients. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of local irritation (low quality evidence).

WITHDRAWN: Topical steroids for nasal polyps

Review withdrawn from Issue 4, 2016. Replaced by new reviews 'Intranasal steroids versus placebo or no intervention for chronic rhinosinusitis' (Chong 2016a) and 'Different types of intranasal steroids for chronic rhinosinusitis' (Chong 2016b).

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

Intranasal corticosteroids for nasal polyposis : biological rationale, efficacy, and safety

Nasal polyposis, occurring in about 2% of the general population, is the ultimate form of inflammation of the upper airways. For unknown reasons, polyps develop preferentially in subtypes of inflammatory diseases and are associated with perennial non-allergic rhinitis, asthma, intolerance of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid)/NSAIDs, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, cystic fibrosis, and primary ciliary dyskinesia. In contrast to common beliefs, IgE-mediated allergy does not seem to play an etiological role in nasal polyposis.The polyps originate from the mucosa around the clefts of the lateral nasal wall, especially in the region of the ostiomeatal complex. The factors that determine the localization of the disease to a few square centimeters of the airways are not known.Polyps are edematous bags covered by respiratory epithelium and contain very few nerves, blood vessels, and glands that have undergone cystic degeneration. They contain degranulated mast cells, have a very high concentration of histamine, and are characteristically infiltrated by eosinophils. These cells accumulate due to the release of proinflammatory cytokines (in particular, interleukin-5).Nasal polyposis is preceded by a prolonged history of rhinitis accompanied by severe and persistent nasal blockage; typically, the sense of smell is seriously impaired when polyps develop. The diagnosis is based on anterior rhinoscopy or, preferably, endoscopy.Nasal polyposis is medically treatable. Surgical treatment is carried out when medication fails. Intranasal corticosteroids reduce rhinitis symptoms, improve nasal breathing, reduce the size of polyps, and prevent, in part, their recurrence, but this treatment has little effect on the sense of smell. Intranasal corticosteroids can, as basic long-term therapy, be used alone in mild cases or together with systemic corticosteroids and/or surgery in severe cases. Systemic corticosteroids administered for 2-3 weeks have a beneficial effect on all observed symptoms and pathology, including the sense of smell. When nasal blockage is a problem in spite of medical treatment, surgery is recommended. Simple polypectomy can be performed, but endoscopic surgery is recommended in more severe and persistent cases.

Chronic Rhinosinusitis-Related Smell Loss: Medical And Surgical Treatment Efficacy

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory disorder of the nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses. Olfactory dysfunction is a common manifestation of CRS and one of its cardinal diagnostic features. A decreased sense of smell can have a profound impact on a CRS patient's quality of life and overall wellbeing. The treatment of CRS-associated olfactory dysfunction includes a wide range of medical interventions, including anti-inflammatory and antibiotic medications, and surgical interventions, including endoscopic sinus and nasal surgery. The evidence and treatment efficacy for these interventions is quite varied. This review provides a summary of the efficacy of the medical and surgical therapeutic options for CRS-associated olfactory dysfunction.

Mucin 1 downregulation associates with corticosteroid resistance in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

A number of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) are resistant to oral corticosteroids. Mucin 1 (MUC1) shows anti-inflammatory properties, and its cytoplasmic tail (CT) interacts with transcription factors, facilitating their nuclear translocation. Because glucocorticoid receptor (GR) nuclear translocation is key to the anti-inflammatory effect of corticosteroids, we hypothesized that MUC1 is involved in the effectiveness of corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role of MUC1 in corticosteroid effectiveness in different cohorts of patients with CRSwNP and elucidate the possible mechanisms involved.

METHODS

Seventy-three patients with CRSwNP took oral corticosteroids for 15 days. Corticosteroid resistance was evaluated by nasal endoscopy. The expression of MUC1 and MUC1 CT was evaluated by real-time PCR, Western blotting, and immunohistochemistry. Beas-2B knockdown with RNA interference for MUC1 (siRNA-MUC1) was used to analyze the role of MUC1 in the anti-inflammatory effects of dexamethasone.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients had nasal polyps that were resistant to oral corticosteroids (NP-CR). MUC1 expression was downregulated in these patients. Primary epithelial cells from patients with NP-CR were insensitive to the anti-inflammatory effects of dexamethasone. In siRNA-MUC1 Beas-2B, dexamethasone showed weaker anti-inflammatory effects, a reduced inhibition of phospho-extracellular-signal-regulated kinases 1/2, a less severe mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase 1 increase, and a reduced GR nuclear translocation. Immunoprecipitation experiments revealed that MUC1-CT and GRα form protein complexes and translocate to the nucleus in response to dexamethasone. MUC1-CT-GRα complex was downregulated in NP-CR tissue.

CONCLUSION

MUC1-CT participates in the corticosteroid response that mediates GRα nuclear translocation. The low expression of MUC1 in patients with CRSwNP may participate in corticosteroid resistance.

Sinus surgery and delivery method influence the effectiveness of topical corticosteroids for chronic rhinosinusitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) use either nasal delivery (nasal drop or nasal spray) or sinus delivery (sinus catheter or sinus irrigation) in patients with or without sinus surgery. This influences topical drug delivery and distribution. The effect of these factors on the published results of RCTs is assessed. This systematic review explores the strength of evidence supporting the influence of sinus surgery and delivery methods on the effectiveness of topical steroids in studies for CRS with meta-analyses.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of RCTs comparing INCS with either placebo or no intervention for treating CRS. Data were extracted for meta-analysis and subgroup analyses by sinus surgery status and topical delivery methods.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies (3961 patients) met the inclusion criteria. INCS improved overall symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.49; p < 0.00001) and the proportion of responders (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. It decreased nasal polyp size with a greater proportion of responders (RR, 0.48; p < 0.00001) and prevented polyp recurrence (RR, 0.59; p = 0.0004) compared with placebo. Reduction of polyp size was greater in patients with sinus surgery (RR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20, 0.48) than those without (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46, 0.81; p = 0.009). Greater symptom improvement occurred when sinus delivery methods (SMD, -1.32; 95% CI, -2.26, -0.38) were compared with nasal delivery methods (SMD, -0.38; 95% CI, -0.55, -0.22; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

INCS is effective for CRS. Prior sinus surgery and direct sinus delivery enhance the effectiveness of INCS in CRS.

Does oral prednisolone increase the efficacy of subsequent nasal steroids in treating nasal polyposis?

BACKGROUND

Although combined oral and nasal steroid therapy is widely used in nasal polyposis, a subset of patients show an unfavorable therapeutic outcome. This study aimed to evaluate whether oral prednisolone produces any additive effects on subsequent nasal steroid therapy and to evaluate if any clinical variables can predict therapeutic outcome.

METHODS

Using a 3:2 randomization ratio, 67 patients with nasal polyposis received 50 mg of prednisolone and 47 patients received placebo daily for 2 weeks, followed by mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) at 200 micrograms twice daily for 10 weeks. Clinical response was evaluated by nasal symptom score (NSS), peak expiratory flow index (PEFI), and total nasal polyps score (TNPS). Potential predictor variables were assessed by clinical history, nasal endoscopy, allergy skin test, and sinus radiography.

RESULTS

At the end of the 2-week oral steroid phase, the prednisolone group showed significantly greater improvements in all nasal symptoms, nasal airflow, and polyp size than the placebo group. In the nasal steroid phase, while the MFNS maintained the outcome improvements in the prednisolone group, all outcome variables in the placebo group showed continuing improvements. At the end of the nasal steroid phase, there were no significant differences of most outcome improvements between the two groups, except in hyposmia, PEFI, and TNPS (p = 0.049, p = 0.029, and p = 0.005, respectively). In the prednisolone group, patients with polyps grade 3 and endoscopic signs of meatal discharge showed significantly less improvement in total NSS, PEFI, and TNPS than patients with grade 1-2 size and negative metal discharge.

CONCLUSION

In the 12-week treatment evaluation of nasal polyposis, pretreatment with oral steroids had no significant advantage for most nasal symptoms other than earlier relief; however, combined oral and nasal steroid therapy more effectively improved hyposmia, polyps size, and nasal airflow. Polyps size grade 3 and/or endoscopic signs of meatal discharge predisposed to a poorer treatment outcome.

Chronic rhinosinusitis and emerging treatment options

This review describes the epidemiology and various treatments in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP). Evidence for short-term use of systemic corticosteroids has been shown to be favorable in CRSwNP, but still limited in CRSsNP. Topical corticosteroids improve symptom scores in both CRS subgroups. The role of microbes in CRS is still controversial. Culture-directed antibiotics are recommended for CRSsNP with exacerbation. Long-term use of low dosage antibiotics is recommended for CRSsNP for their anti-inflammatory effects. Other emerging treatment options are also discussed.

Brazilian Academy of Rhinology position paper on topical intranasal therapy

This documents aims at educating those who treat sinonasal diseases - both general practitioners and specialists - about topical nasal treatments. By means of scientific evidence reviews, the Brazilian Academy of Rhinology provides its practical and updated guidelines on the most utilized topical nasal medication, except for the drugs that have topical antibiotics in their formulas.

Role of medical therapy in the management of nasal polyps

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the nasal and paranasal sinus mucosa that, despite differing hypotheses regarding its cause, remains poorly understood. Major symptoms are nasal congestion or blockage, loss of smell, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and facial pain or pressure. Among the objectives of CRSwNP management are to eradicate nasal polyps from nasal and sinusal cavities, eliminate symptoms, and prevent recurrences. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment and are the most effective drugs for treating CRSwNP. Other potential treatments are nasal saline irrigation and antihistamines (in allergic conditions). Endoscopic sinus surgery is recommended when medical treatment fails. After surgery, medical treatment, including nasal and oral corticosteroids, is recommended.

Nasal drug delivery devices: characteristics and performance in a clinical perspective-a review

Nasal delivery is the logical choice for topical treatment of local diseases in the nose and paranasal sinuses such as allergic and non-allergic rhinitis and sinusitis. The nose is also considered an attractive route for needle-free vaccination and for systemic drug delivery, especially when rapid absorption and effect are desired. In addition, nasal delivery may help address issues related to poor bioavailability, slow absorption, drug degradation, and adverse events in the gastrointestinal tract and avoids the first-pass metabolism in the liver. However, when considering nasal delivery devices and mechanisms, it is important to keep in mind that the prime purpose of the nasal airway is to protect the delicate lungs from hazardous exposures, not to serve as a delivery route for drugs and vaccines. The narrow nasal valve and the complex convoluted nasal geometry with its dynamic cyclic physiological changes provide efficient filtration and conditioning of the inspired air, enhance olfaction, and optimize gas exchange and fluid retention during exhalation. However, the potential hurdles these functional features impose on efficient nasal drug delivery are often ignored. With this background, the advantages and limitations of existing and emerging nasal delivery devices and dispersion technologies are reviewed with focus on their clinical performance. The role and limitations of the in vitro testing in the FDA guidance for nasal spray pumps and pressurized aerosols (pressurized metered-dose inhalers) with local action are discussed. Moreover, the predictive value and clinical utility of nasal cast studies and computer simulations of nasal airflow and deposition with computer fluid dynamics software are briefly discussed. New and emerging delivery technologies and devices with emphasis on Bi-Directional™ delivery, a novel concept for nasal delivery that can be adapted to a variety of dispersion technologies, are described in more depth.

Topical steroids for nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) represents inflammatory changes throughout the nose and sinuses from a group of disorders which all lead to swelling and overgrowth of the nasal mucosa. Topical corticosteroids have been the most widely used treatment, with each clinician using different regimes, at different doses, in different settings and with or without sinus surgery. CRSwNP requires ongoing medical management to prevent recurrence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical corticosteroids on CRSwNP and to analyse various subgroups, including patients who had sinus surgery immediately prior to the delivery of the corticosteroids, surgery any time prior to the topical corticosteroids or patients who had never had previous surgery. Also to assess the most effective dose and delivery methods for topical corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 10 April 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials studying topical corticosteroids for patients with CRSwNP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two authors reviewed the search results and selected trials meeting the eligibility criteria, obtaining full texts and contacting authors. We documented our justification for the exclusion of studies. At least two authors extracted data using a pre-determined, standardised data form.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty studies (3624 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The trials were at low (21 trials), medium (13 trials) and high (six trials) risk of bias. The primary outcomes were sino-nasal symptoms, polyp size and polyp recurrence after surgery. When compared to placebo, topical corticosteroids improved overall symptom scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.65 to -0.27, P < 0.00001; seven trials, n = 445) and had a higher proportion of patients whose symptoms improved (responders) (risk ratio (RR) 1.71; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.26, P = 0.0002; four trials, n = 234). Topical corticosteroids also decreased the polyp score (SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.00 to -0.46, P < 0.00001; three trials, n = 237) and had a greater proportion of patients with a reduction in polyp size (responders) (RR 2.09; 95% CI 1.65 to 2.64, P < 0.00001; eight trials, n = 785) when compared to placebo. Topical corticosteroids also prevented polyp recurrence after surgery (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.79, P = 0.0004; six trials, n = 437). Subgroup analyses by sinus surgery status revealed a greater benefit in reduction of polyp score when topical steroid was administered any time after sinus surgery (SMD -1.19; 95% CI -1.54 to -0.83) compared to patients who had never had surgery (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.28, P < 0.00001). There was no difference between groups in terms of adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical corticosteroids are a beneficial treatment for CRSwNP and the adverse effects are minor, with benefits outweighing the risks. They improve symptoms, reduce polyp size and prevent polyp recurrence after surgery. Patients having sinus surgery may have a greater response to topical corticosteroids but further research is required.

Efficacy of medical therapy in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis

Uncomplicated chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is generally treated with medical therapy initially and surgery is contemplated only after medical therapy has failed. However, there is considerable variation in the medical treatment regimens used and studies defining their efficacy are few. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients treated medically who responded sufficiently well so that surgery was not required. Subgroup analysis to identify clinical features that predicted a favorable response to medical therapy was also performed. Eighty patients referred to the Otorhinolaryngology Clinic at North Shore Hospital were treated with a standardized medical therapy protocol (oral prednisone for 3 weeks, oral antibiotics and ongoing saline lavage and intranasal budesonide spray). Symptom scores were collected before and after medical therapy. Clinical features such as presence of polyps, asthma, and aspirin hypersensitivity were recorded. Failure of medical therapy was defined as the persistence of significant CRS symptoms, and those patients who failed medical therapy were offered surgery. Follow-up data were available for 72 (90%) patients. Of this group, 52.5%, (95% CI, 42.7%, 62.2%) failed to respond adequately to medical therapy and were offered surgery. The remaining patients (37.5%) were successfully treated with medical therapy and did not require surgery at the time of follow-up. The premedical therapy symptom scores were significantly higher than the postmedical therapy symptom scores (p < 0.01). The symptom scores of those patients postmedical therapy who proceeded to have surgery were significantly higher than the group who responded well to maximum medical therapy (MMT) and did not require surgery (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients with asthma, aspirin sensitivity, or polyps between the groups failing or not failing MMT. In approximately one-third of patients with CRS, medical therapy improved symptoms sufficiently so that surgical therapy was avoided. Patients with more severe symptoms tended not to respond as well as those with less severe symptoms. Long-term follow-up is required for the group of responders to determine how many will eventually relapse.

Impact of topical nasal steroid therapy on symptoms of nasal polyposis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Topical steroid therapy is an important strategy in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyposis. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of topical steroid therapy on nasal symptoms in patients with nasal polyposis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis using standardized methodology.

METHODS

Study inclusion criteria included: randomized, placebo controlled trials, nasal polyposis, and topical steroid therapy. Exclusion criteria included: failure to report at least one symptom-based outcome measure, concurrent use of systemic steroids, or mixed CRS cohorts (polyp and nonpolyp patients). Quantitative analysis was performed using a random effect model. The PRISMA guidelines for meta-analysis reporting were followed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies fulfilled eligibility. Seven studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting. A total of 12 studies were combined for quantitative analysis and demonstrated a pooled risk ratio of 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.09), indicating a significant improvement in nasal symptoms. All three topical steroid preparations (fluticasone, mometasone, and budesonide) resulted in symptom improvement. All seven studies excluded from the meta-analysis qualitatively confirmed the overall findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical nasal steroid therapy improves nasal symptoms in CRS patients with nasal polyposis. Future studies will need to evaluate the impact on quality of life, preferably using validated disease-specific instruments.

Chronic rhinosinusitis: therapeutic efficacy of anti-inflammatory and antibiotic approaches

Despite the high prevalence of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) worldwide, the exact pathogenesis of the disease remains unknown. Even with therapeutic intervention, treatment response is often only partial and frequently ineffective. The inability to define exact disease phenotypes in relation to specific disease mechanisms has led to a broad based approach with both anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial intervention. The clinical efficacy of such current therapeutic strategies is highlighted and the urgent need for further robust therapeutic intervention studies in CRS is discussed in this article.

Rhinosinusitis diagnosis and management for the clinician: a synopsis of recent consensus guidelines

Rhinosinusitis (RS) affects approximately 1 in 7 adults in the United States, and its effect on quality of life, productivity, and finances is substantial. During the past 10 years, several expert panels from authoritative bodies have published evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of RS and its subtypes, including acute viral RS, acute bacterial RS, chronic RS (CRS) without nasal polyposis, CRS with nasal polyposis, and allergic fungal RS. This review examines and compares the recommendations of the Rhinosinusitis Initiative, the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, the Clinical Practice Guideline: Adult Sinusitis, the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2007, and the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Points of consensus and divergent opinions expressed in these guidelines regarding classification, diagnosis, and management of adults with acute RS (ARS) and CRS and their various subtypes are highlighted for the practicing clinician. Key points of agreement regarding therapy in the guidelines for ARS include the efficacy of symptomatic treatment, such as intranasal corticosteroids, and the importance of reducing the unnecessary use of antibiotics in ARS; however, guidelines do not agree precisely regarding when antibiotics should be considered as a reasonable treatment strategy. Although the guidelines diverge markedly on the management of CRS, the diagnostic utility of nasal airway examination is acknowledged by all. Important and relevant data from MEDLINE-indexed articles published since the most recent guidelines were issued are also considered, and needs for future research are discussed.

Evidence-based management of nasal polyposis by intranasal corticosteroids: from the cause to the clinic

BACKGROUND

Nasal polyposis is an inflammatory disorder involving the mucosa of the nose and paranasal sinuses and affecting approximately 2-4% of the general population.

METHODS

A literature search of Medline and Embase was conducted to obtain an overview of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and current treatment of nasal polyposis, focusing on evidence-based efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) as primary and postoperative therapy. Recent research on INSs in nasal polyp treatment, along with notable historic findings, was reviewed.

RESULTS

Nasal polyps are mostly characterized by eosinophil infiltration, a complex inflammation of nasal mucosa, and possibly production of polyclonal IgE. Current treatment modalities include INSs, oral corticosteroids, and surgery; surgery is generally limited to those with an insufficient response to medical treatment. Because of their effects on eosinophil-dominated inflammation, INSs and oral corticosteroids are the primary medical treatment strategies. The very low (≤1%) systemic bioavailability of newer INSs minimizes the systemic adverse effects seen with oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSION

Based on randomized, controlled trials, guidelines recommend INSs as first-line therapy for nasal polyps and for care after polypectomy. Clinical data suggest INSs are effective in reducing polyp size and relieving nasal symptoms. INS treatment has also reduced nasal polyp recurrence in patients undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Treatment with these mainstay options has been found to improve quality of life, which, along with symptom improvement, is a key factor in disease treatment.

Controversies in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) including nasal polyps is a chronic inflammatory disease involving the mucosa of the nose and one or more paranasal sinuses. Despite differing hypotheses, the cause remains poorly understood. The key issue is the maintaining of ostial patency. CRS with nasal polyps is considered to be a subgroup of CRS. Major symptoms are nasal congestion or blockage, loss of smell, rhinorrhea, post-nasal drip, and facial pain or pressure. CRS is associated with lower airway disease such asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis. In CRS with and without nasal polyps, medical treatment, including nasal and oral corticosteroids, is the first therapeutic option. The treatment of CRS still remains an unmet need. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment and are the most effective drugs for treating airway inflammatory diseases such as asthma, allergic rhinitis and CRS. Endoscopic sinus surgery is only recommended when medical treatment fails. After surgery, medical treatment, including nasal and oral corticosteroids, is recommended.

Oral steroids and doxycycline: two different approaches to treat nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

There is little scientific evidence to support the current practice of using oral glucocorticosteroids and antibiotics to treat patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effects of oral glucocorticoids and doxycycline on symptoms and objective clinical and biological parameters in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 47 participants with bilateral nasal polyps to receive either methylprednisolone in decreasing doses (32-8 mg once daily), doxycycline (200 mg on the first day, followed by 100 mg once daily), or placebo for 20 days. Participants were followed for 12 weeks. Patients were assessed for nasal peak inspiratory flow and symptoms and by nasal endoscopy. Markers of inflammation such as eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP), IL-5, myeloperoxidase, matrix metalloproteinase 9, and IgE were measured in nasal secretions. Concentrations of eosinophils, ECP, and soluble IL-5 receptor alpha were measured in peripheral blood samples.

RESULTS

Methylprednisolone and doxycycline each significantly decreased nasal polyp size compared with placebo. The effect of methylprednisolone was maximal at week 3 and lasted until week 8, whereas the effect of doxycycline was moderate but present for 12 weeks. Methylprednisolone significantly reduced levels of ECP, IL-5, and IgE in nasal secretions, whereas doxycycline significantly reduced levels of myeloperoxidase, ECP, and matrix metalloproteinase 9 in nasal secretions.

CONCLUSION

This is the first double-blind, placebo-controlled study to show a significant effect of oral methylprednisolone and doxycycline on size of nasal polyps, nasal symptoms, and mucosal and systemic markers of inflammation.

Reliability and validity assessments of a Japanese version of QOL 20-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test for chronic rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of a Japanese version of the 20-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test SNOT-20, which is one of the quality-of-life (QOL) evaluation sheets for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), and assess its reliability and validity.

METHODS

The SNOT-20 was conducted in patients with CRS and in healthy volunteers. The response rate was evaluated as the feasibility of this test, and reliability and internal consistency were assessed as reliability. In addition, concurrent validity and discriminant validity were assessed as validity.

RESULTS

Regarding the feasibility of this test, the response rate for each question item in the SNOT-20 was nearly 100% for all 20 items. For reliability, test-retest reliability was r=0.890 and the internal consistency was alpha=0.903. For validity, the concurrent validity was r=0.162 when compared with objective findings in the nasal cavity, and was r=0.431 when compared with the score for general physical condition, which evaluate the patient's general condition. Discriminant validity was significantly higher in patients with CRS than in healthy volunteers (p<0.001). Moreover, when the discriminant validity was assessed using an ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve, it was found that ROC-AUC (the area under the curve)=0.775.

CONCLUSION

The reliability and validity of a Japanese version of the SNOT-20 were assessed in this study. It is thought that the SNOT-20 serves as a useful QOL evaluation sheet for CRS.

A systematic review of the use of intranasal steroids in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE: To determine if intranasal steroids (INS) are useful in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with polyps.

DATA SOURCES: Studies for inclusion were searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and references of included studies.

REVIEW METHODS: Initial screening of article titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search was performed independently by two reviewers (SAJ and RT) based on the research protocol criteria. These articles then underwent a second-stage review. Each article was read in detail and discussed by the two reviewers before inclusion in the study.

RESULTS: The review yielded 13 studies regarding the treatment of sinonasal polyps with intranasal steroids. Six of these could be included in the meta-analysis. The outcome measure used for meta-analysis was change in polyp size from baseline compared between the treatment and control groups. Results from both conservative and optimistic selection of treatment effect are positive, providing significant improvement in polyp size in the treatment group as compared to controls. In the conservative estimate, the mean improvement in polyp size score between the treatment and placebo group is 0.43 with a 95% CI of [0.25, 0.61]. Of those treatment groups with the largest improvement, the mean improvement in polyp size score can go as high as 0.63 with a 95% CI of [0.43, 0.82].

CONCLUSION: Intranasal steroids are beneficial in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with sinonasal polyps. Further studies looking at the use of INS in the treatment of CRS without polyps are warranted.

Topical budesonide via mucosal atomization device in refractory postoperative chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Nebulized budesonide (Pulmicort Respules, AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) provides control of respiratory tract inflammation in asthmatic patients. The Mucosal Atomization Device (MAD; Wolfe-Tory Medical, Salt Lake City, UT) is a novel sinonasal atomization device.

METHODS

Uncontrolled case series of postoperative patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) who received budesonide via MAD was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients with a mean age of 53.5 years met inclusion criteria. The average follow-up was 31.5 weeks (SD 17.55; range, 8 to 80 weeks). Overall, patient and physician global assessments demonstrated moderate to significant improvement. Average daily oral prednisone usage among patients who took systemic steroids (n = 27) was reduced from 7.96 to 1.94 mg/day without relapse of polyps, mucosal edema, and nasal discharge. Prednisone use was reduced to zero in 16 patients and reduced or stabilized in 10 other patients.

CONCLUSION

Topical budesonide via MAD may reduce the need for systemic prednisone and improve both physician and patient global assessment scores in postoperative CRS patients. Additional investigation is warranted to exclude placebo effect, spontaneous resolution, and regression to the mean as responsible factors for the reported findings.

Anti-inflammatory treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: a shifting paradigm

Treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis still represents an unmet medical need. Presently, the US Food and Drug Administration has not approved any drugs for the treatment of this common condition. Various inflammatory processes are involved in the pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis. Treatment of infection and surgical intervention to correct anatomic abnormalities often are inadequate in management when singly employed. Anti-inflammatory therapy such as topical cortico-steroids and more recently long-term, low-dose macrolide therapy has been integrated into the treatment algorithm for chronic rhinosinusitis. Better classification and point-of-care identification of inflammatory features may improve choice of anti-inflammatory therapy and thus outcome.

Onset of symptomatic effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of nasal polyposis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) for treatment of nasal polyposis was demonstrated in 2 large clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the onset of MFNS symptomatic effect, data from the 2 trials were pooled and analyzed to determine the first day subjects experienced significant symptom relief.

METHODS

Subjects with nasal polyposis randomized to MFNS 200 microg twice daily or placebo scored symptoms on a 3-point scale (0 = none; 3 = severe) and measured peak nasal inspiratory flow immediately before the morning dose. Onset of symptomatic effect was defined as the first day a statistically significant (P < .05) lasting response was observed for MFNS compared with placebo.

RESULTS

A total of 447 subjects with bilateral nasal polyps and clinically significant nasal congestion/obstruction were analyzed. Compared with placebo, MFNS 200 microg twice daily demonstrated statistically significant (P < .05) relief of anterior rhinorrhea by day 2 (-10.9% vs +5.7%), nasal congestion by day 3 (-15.1% vs -7.6%), postnasal drip by day 5 (+1.1% vs +4.6%), and sense of smell by day 13 (-9.6% vs -5.6%). Significant improvement in peak nasal inspiratory flow was seen by day 2 (increase of 6.22 L/min vs 1.48 L/min for placebo; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Mometasone furoate nasal spray 200 microg twice daily rapidly improves the symptoms of nasal polyposis, leading to lasting relief of most major symptoms within 2 (24 hours after the first dose) to 5 days of initiating therapy.

Therapeutic options for reducing sleep impairment in allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory disorders of the upper airways, such as allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis, often have significant sleep disturbances. Poor sleep can lead to fatigue, daytime somnolence, impaired daytime functioning as reflected in lower levels of productivity at work or school, and a reduced quality of life. Although the exact mechanisms by which these inflammatory nasal conditions disturb sleep is not fully understood, congestion appears to be a key factor and is generally the most common and bothersome symptom for patients with these conditions. Successful therapy should improve patients' sleep and well-being without introducing any negative effects on sleep. SCOPE OF LITERATURE SEARCH: Literature searches of Medline, Embase, and abstracts from medical/scientific conferences were conducted for the period of 1995 through mid-2006 for primary and review articles and conference presentations about sleep disturbance related to allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis. These searches also sought to identify articles examining how treatments for those diseases improved sleep and, consequently, patients' quality of life. Surveys of the impact of congestion on patients' quality of life and their sleep also were consulted. Clinical studies were selected for discussion if they were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Limitations of this review include the absence of any direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different drugs on improving sleep and shortcomings in the statistical methods of the patient surveys.

FINDINGS

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are the most effective medication for reducing congestion in patients with inflammatory nasal conditions. There is a growing amount of evidence that a reduction in congestion with INSs is associated with improved sleep, reduced daytime sleepiness, and enhanced patient quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Relief of sleep impairment associated with inflammatory disorders of the nose and sinuses can be addressed with INS therapy.

Anti-inflammatory treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: A shifting paradigm

Treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis still represents an unmet medical need. Presently, the US Food and Drug Administration has not approved any drugs for the treatment of this common condition. Various inflammatory processes are involved in the pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis. Treatment of infection and surgical intervention for correction of anatomical abnormalities often are inadequate in management when singly employed. Anti-inflammatory therapy such as topical cortico-steroids and more recently long-term, low-dose macrolide therapy have been integrated into the treatment algorithm for chronic rhinosinusitis. Better classification and point-of-care identification of inflammatory features may improve choice of anti-inflammatory therapy and thus outcome.

Diagnosis and management of olfactory disorders: survey of UK-based consultants and literature review

Background:

The diagnosis and management of olfactory disorders is an often neglected topic in otolaryngology. This article evaluates current clinical practice within the United Kingdom, and provides a literature-based review of the diagnosis, management and prognosis of olfactory pathology.

Design:

A questionnaire was sent to consultant and associate specialist members of the British Association of Otolaryngologists and Head and Neck Surgeons. The responses were documented to gain an impression of how olfactory disorders are managed in the United Kingdom. The literature relating to olfactory dysfunction was then evaluated and the findings summarised.

Conclusions:

Management of olfactory pathology varies across the United Kingdom. The literature suggests that chemosensory testing is optimal and that both forced-choice and threshold testing should be applied if objective evaluation is required. Imaging can be of value but the appropriate technique should be used. Olfactory function can recover following head injury, viral infection and chronic sinonasal disease, although varying degrees of dysfunction are likely to persist. There is a role for the use of corticosteroids, particularly when administered systemically. More research is needed to establish the appropriate dose and length of treatment.