Amphotericin B nasal irrigation as an adjuvant therapy after functional endoscopic sinus surgery

Evaluating the efficacy of nasal irrigation in postoperative functional endoscopic sinus surgery patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) is a mainstay surgical intervention for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). Nasal irrigation, particularly with normal saline, is a widely recommended postoperative care modality. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of various nasal irrigation solutions in postoperative FESS patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases for randomized controlled trials investigating normal saline and various substances for nasal irrigation post-FESS. The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, and the meta-analysis used R software for data synthesis. Outcome measures included SNOT-22 and LKES scores. The Cochrane tool was employed to evaluate the potential for bias.

RESULTS

Results from 14 studies, focusing on six each for SNOT-22 and LKES, revealed a significant reduction in symptoms and endoscopic scores with various solutions compared to normal saline. The meta-analysis using the random-effects model indicated a negative standardized mean difference (SMD) of - 0.69(95% CI [- 1.64; 0.27], p = 0.157) for symptoms and endoscopic scores (SMD = - 0.48, 95% CI [- 1.32; 0.36], z = - 1.12, p = 0.264). Subgroup analyses highlighted budesonide's efficacy over normal saline, but substantial heterogeneity and potential publication bias were noted.

CONCLUSION

Nasal irrigation with various solutions postoperative FESS patients demonstrated significant improvements in patient-reported symptoms and endoscopic scores compared to normal saline. Budesonide appeared particularly effective. However, high heterogeneity and potential publication bias warrant cautious interpretation. Standardized outcome measures and further research are needed to strengthen the evidence.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nasal Irrigation for Chronic Rhinosinusitis in Adults

The Korean Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Korean Rhinologic Society appointed a guideline development group (GDG) to establish a clinical practice guideline, and the GDG developed a guideline for nasal irrigation for adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The guideline focuses on knowledge gaps, practice variations, and clinical concerns associated with nasal irrigation. Nasal irrigation has been recommended as the first-line treatment for CRS in various guidelines, and its clinical effectiveness has been demonstrated through a number of studies with robust evidence. However, no guidelines have presented a consistent nasal irrigation method. Several databases, including OVID Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed, were searched to identify all relevant papers using a predefined search strategy. When insufficient evidence was found, the GDG sought expert opinions and attempted to fill the evidence gap. Evidence-based recommendations for practice were ranked according to the American College of Physicians grading system. The committee developed 11 evidence-based recommendations. This guideline focuses on the evidence-based quality improvement opportunities deemed the most important by the GDG. Moreover, the guideline addresses whether nasal lavage helps treat CRS, what type of rinsing solution should be used, and the effectiveness of using additional medications to increase the therapeutic effect.

The Effect of Isotonic Saline Nasal Lavages in Improving Symptoms in SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Case-Control Study

Background: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mainly colonizes nasopharynx. In upper airways acute infections, e.g., the common cold, saline nasal irrigations have a significant efficacy in reducing symptoms. The present study aimed to test the efficacy of nasal lavages in upper airways symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: A series of consecutive adult subjects who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from December 2020 to February 2021 performed daily nasal lavages with saline solution (Lavonase®—Purling, Lugo di Romagna, Italy) for 12 days, starting on the day after the SARS-CoV-2 positive swab. A control group included a historical series of patients who were infected in February-March 2020 and who did not perform lavages. An ad hoc questionnaire regarding symptoms was administered to each subjects at base-line and 10 days after diagnosis (i.e., on the same day of the control swab) in both cases and controls.

Results: A total of 140 subjects were enrolled. 68 participants in the treatment group and 72 in the control group were included. 90% of respondents declared the lavages were simple to use and 70% declared they were satisfied. Symptoms of blocked nose, runny nose, or sneezing decreased by an average of 24.7% after the treatment. Blocked nose and sneezing increased in the same period of time in the control group. Ears and eyes symptoms, anosmia/ageusia symptoms, and infection duration (10.53 days in the treatment group and 10.48 days in the control group) didn't vary significantly among the two groups.

Conclusion: Nasal lavages resulted to significantly decrease nasal symptoms in newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 patients. These devices proved to be well-tolerated and easy to be used. Further studies on a larger number of subjects are needed in order to possibly confirm these preliminary results.

Use of Nonmedicated Control Substances in Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis

Importance

The effect of nonmedicated control substances in chronic rhinosinusitis remains unclear.

Objective

To assess the association of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials with disease outcomes in patients diagnosed with chronic rhinosinusitis.

Data Sources and Study Selection

In this single-arm systematic review and meta-analysis, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials with a preintervention and postintervention design for chronic rhinosinusitis that were published between 1946 and January 23, 2019.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment to rate the quality of the evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the association of nonmedicated control substances with 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores or nasal symptom scores when SNOT-22 was not available.

Results

A total of 2305 abstracts were identified and screened, 725 articles were reviewed in full text, and 38 articles met the study criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Among the 38 included studies, a total of 2258 adults (mean age range, 27-53 years; 20.0%-72.5% women) were randomized to receive nonmedicated control substances or sham interventions. Topical nonmedicated control substances were associated with significant reduction in SNOT-22 scores (mean difference [MD], -8.81; 95% CI, -12.60 to -5.03). A subgroup analysis of topical therapies, limited to saline irrigation and nasal spray diluents, found that topical diluents were associated with a greater reduction in SNOT-22 scores (MD, -11.45; 95% CI, -13.50 to -9.41) compared with saline irrigation (MD, -13.60; 95% CI, -19.95 to -7.25). Nonmedicated control substances were associated with a significant reduction in nasal obstruction scores (standardized MD [SMD], -0.42; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.03). No significant change was found in rhinorrhea scores (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -1.37 to 0.69), postnasal drip scores (SMD, -0.96; 95% CI, -2.18 to 0.25), facial pain scores (SMD, -0.57; 95% CI, -1.68 to 0.55), or loss of smell scores (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.32).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials of chronic rhinosinusitis outcomes suggests that the use of nonmedicated control substances is associated with limited improvements in SNOT-22 and nasal obstruction scores. These findings highlight potential areas of future research directions and the importance of randomized clinical trials to accurately estimate treatment effect.

Systematic literature review of humanistic and economic burdens of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence (RWE) studies to determine the humanistic (e.g. health-related/disease-specific quality of life [QOL]) and economic (e.g. direct and indirect costs) burdens of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP).

METHODS

The SLR adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase, MEDLINE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases were searched using OVID. Relevant studies involving adult patients with CRSwNP published between 1 January 2008 and 16 February 2019 were included, with relevant conference abstracts from 1 January 2017, onward.

RESULTS

Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test (SNOT)-22 was the most frequently used disease-specific health-related QOL/patient-reported outcomes instrument for patients with CRSwNP. Baseline SNOT-22 scores ranged from 25 to 73 for surgical candidates and from 14 to 56 for medically managed patients with CRSwNP. Mean baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index for patients with CRSwNP ranged from 0.81 to 0.86, and mean baseline Short Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D) ranged from 0.67 to 0.75. Three months (EQ-5D) and 5 years (SF-6D) post-endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), rates increased from 0.81 to 0.89 and from 0.69 to 0.80, respectively. One year post-diagnosis, patients with CRSwNP had significantly more systemic prescriptions, underwent significantly more medical procedures, demonstrated greater health care resource utilization and had significantly greater mean health care costs compared with matched controls (all p < .001). Overall, for patients with initial ESS, CRSwNP was associated with higher disease-related expenditures compared with CRS without nasal polyposis (NP), even for patients who did not undergo revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR identified substantial humanistic burden among surgery candidates. RWE shows that surgeries were used to treat relatively more severe CRSwNP patients as recommended by guidelines. Patient QOL is improved significantly after surgery; however, there is a lack of evidence on patients with revision surgery. Surgery is also associated with higher costs, and the presence of NP was a predictor of revision surgery. Patients with CRSwNP demonstrate greater health care resource utilization and costs compared to those with CRS without NP. Costs associated with different severity of CRSwNP and revision surgery need to be assessed further.

Topical and systemic antifungal therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This review adds to a series of reviews looking at primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Antifungals have been suggested as a treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The effects of nasal irrigation with various solutions after endoscopic sinus surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Nasal irrigation is commonly performed in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. This study systematically assessed the clinical efficacy of nasal irrigation from the medical literature.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched using a comprehensive strategy, limited to English-language articles, published from October 1971 to March 2017, and comprising human subjects.

Results

A total of 824 trials were identified, 5 of which, involving 331 participants, were included in this systematic review. After selection, only three trials were eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Nasal irrigation using normal saline and various solutions was found to be effective in reducing symptom scores and endoscopic scores for chronic rhinosinusitis patients after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Comparison of outcome measures, such as eosinophil count reduction, revealed that various solutions are more effective than normal saline alone; however, no statistical significance was found in terms of reduced symptom or endoscopic scores.

Conclusion

Based on the current limited evidence, nasal irrigation is an effective therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis patients after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. However, when comparing various solutions with normal saline, no significant difference was found in symptom scores or endoscopic scores.

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 phenotypes

OBJECTIVE

To review the current knowledge surrounding different chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) presentations and the relative roles of nasal polyps, eosinophilia, and allergies in discerning phenotypes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed literature review.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Articles discussing the various phenotypes of CRS with emphasis on pathologic and immune mechanistic studies that distinguish disease.

RESULTS

Current guidelines primarily separate CRS based on the presence or absence of nasal polyps. This is largely driven by the tendency of eosinophilic disease to present with nasal polyps (NPs) in contrast to noneosinophilic presentations, which less often lead to the development NPs. Further separations have been proposed based on expression of aeroallergen sensitization.

CONCLUSION

The presence of NPs may only poorly predict the presence of an underlying eosinophilic process and as such may have poor utility in forming the basis for recommending eosinophil-target therapies. Similarly, there is little evidence to support a significant role for aeroallergen exposure in contributing to the presence, severity, or natural history of CRS. Appropriate separation of CRS into specific phenotypes will allow therapeutic approaches to be individualized to each distinct presentation.

Failure of itraconazole to prevent T-helper type 2 cell immune deviation: Implications for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

T-helper (Th) type 2 cell inflammation is the hallmark of several disease processes, including asthma, atopic dermatitis, and some forms of chronic rhinosinusitis. Itraconazole has been used as both an antifungal and an anti-inflammatory agent, with some success in many of these diseases, in part, by altering Th2 cytokine expression by T cells. It is not known whether this merely reflects inhibition of established Th2-like cells or the inhibition of differentiation of naive T cells into Th2-like cells.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of itraconazole in the differentiation of naive T cells during activation.

METHODS

Naive CD45RA+ T cells were isolated from peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy volunteers. Th1 and Th2 type cells were differentiated in the presence of varying concentrations of itraconazole. After stimulation with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 beads, carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester dilution was performed to evaluate proliferation and intracellular cytokine staining for interleukin (IL) 4 and interferon (IFN) gamma within proliferating T cells was measured along with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for secreted IL-5, IL-13, and IFN gamma.

RESULTS

Itraconazole had no effect on proliferation of unbiased, Th1, or Th2 cells. Similarly, there was no effect of itraconazole on either intracellular cytokine staining of IL-4 and IFN gamma or secreted cytokine expression of IFN gamma, IL-5, and IL-13 in any of the cell populations.

CONCLUSION

Itraconazole did not alter the ability of naive T cells to proliferate or secrete cytokines under Th1 or Th2 deviating conditions in vitro. As such, reported inhibition of Th2-like lymphocyte function by itraconazole reflected action on mature effector cells and may have underscored why antifungal treatment failed in many clinical trials of eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis.

Nasal Irrigation as Treatment in Sinonasal Symptoms Relief: A Review of Its Efficacy and Clinical Applications

Nasal irrigations have been used for centuries without any scientific data to determine its efficacy. Despite their widespread use, much confusion exist about the mechanism of action, preparation, indications and therapeutic advantage of nasal irrigations. Anecdotal evidence and poorly controlled studies add to the confusion. Recent evidence provides strong scientific justification of the benefits and advantages of using nasal irrigations in sinonasal symptoms relief. The present review of the evidence based literature highlights its efficacy and clinical applications.